Talk:Druid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Text from 2001

Good article, but a few things: I think it needs a short introduction to what druidism actually is. This just dives in, assuming that we already know. A few subheadings might be a good idea as well. Finally, please label the link somehow so readers can know in advance if they want to klick it or not. "S.A." is not very informative. --Pinkunicorn

Derived from Ancient Greek?

Odysses - it's misleading say that druides is derived from the Ancient Greek for oak. It's not a native Greek word, but a borrowing from another language which is probably derived from that language's word for oak. The two words for oak are cognate and derived from Indo-European roots, so they look similar, but that doesn't mean you can claim that "druid" is derived from a Greek word and is not a foreign borrowing. --Nicknack009 16:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Nicknack - there weren't any Druids in Ancient Greece, that's true. Δρυίδης literally means "son of oak tree(s)". I don’t know if this makes any sense.

If you search for similarities between Mycenaeans and Celts you will be surprised. Mycenaean pottery discovered in Britain and Ireland recently proves this.

Besides, Celtus was a person of Greek Mythology, the son of Heracles and Celtine, (Ref.: Parth. 30.1-2, [1]. According to Greek Mythology, Heracles lived before the cataclysm. Looking at druwis and δρύς are probably of the same root. Possibly both used long before Homer.

I won't change the text, but I still believe its relevant to δρύς. --Odysses 19:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hm, you are aware that the Greek and Celtic languages are related, aren't you? drus "oak" was certainly used long before Homer, but that has nothing to do with druids, and this article isn't about the cultural history of the oak in particular. dab (ᛏ) 19:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Druids lived in oak forests, and there was a very good reason for this. Besides, did I mention "there was no language before Homer?" --Odysses 19:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot remember you did. Well, time to rewrite Origin of language then, I suppose.... dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need to "re-write", just examine existing texts more thoroughly. I had a look in Origin of language. Lots of Biblical references and various hypotheses but no mention of any classical philosophers, like Plato for instance.

In Cratylus, Plato did quote:

the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say.

and

the primeval givers of names were undoubtedly like too many of our modern philosophers…

Correct me if I'm wrong but considerable persons and philosophers can hardly refer to stone age people.--Odysses 09:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not? --Nicknack009 11:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you aren't actually serious, Odysse[u]s, are you? I wouldn't want to be guilty of troll feeding. If you are, I suggest you have a chat with User:IZAK, who has just amused me with [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elam&diff=15438509&oldid=15434332] edit :) dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about me dab. Besides, you are not as bad as you 're trying to look :-)

Amused with Plato? Then may I suggest Hesiod. You'll find it hilarious.

The main difference between Indo-European languages theory and Cratylus, is that the former tend to limit the proto-language to ca. 4000 BC, whereas Plato goes back to before 10.000 BC.

Just wondering, how the Indo-European languages theory could explain the origin of the word "anthropology"? --Odysses 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you are of course making no sense at all. You should try editing the Time Cube, man :o) dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid dub I have come to the same conclusion with you: you are of course making no sense at all.

Allow me to summarise. First you suggest: time to rewrite Origin of language. Then you confess: I wouldn't want to be guilty of troll feeding. Subsequently, I suggest you have a chat with User:IZAK, who has just amused me. The final blow is: You should try editing the Time Cube.--Odysses 10:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknack, by saying " Why not?" I guess you mean why Stone Age people cannot produce advanced achievements like poetry and astronomy.

By the time they will start doing that, they would emerge from the Stone Age to a new Age. History timeline is known to have flaws and is been revised from time to time. Only five centuries ago, it was believed that the world timeline had a span of 6.000 years. --Odysses 11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might not have noticed, but astrologically-aligned monuments suggest that stone age people did indeed know astronomy. They almost certainly did create poetry. They might not have been able to write it down, but then neither could Homer. --Nicknack009 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Odysses, I was assuming you were joking. If you are serious, you seem to be representing some viewpoints from the outer fringe of science. The "Stone Age" ends with the widespread use of Bronze. Of course people were civilized long before they had a Bronze industry, and also long before the emergence of the Greek language. You may want to have a look at Neolithisation, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Old European culture, and generally browse around Category:Ancient history before you continue editing. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dab, you have very nicely put it: from the outer fringe of science.

What was once outer fringe, could possibly someday find it's way within the science, and vice versa. Troy for instance, was in the outer fringe of science 150 years ago, then it was uncovered by E. Shlieman. History is not my Science, so perhaps I am permitted to have a more liberal view.

By looking at the pattern from Golden Age of the ancient world, to Dark ages, to Renaissance, the path of civilization is not always uphill. Then we have the Ages of Man by Hesiod, from Golden to Silver to Bronze to Iron Age, which shows a surprisingly downhill pattern.

To make things more complex, R. M. Schoch, based on erosion measurements claims to have redated the Sphinx to ca. 7000 BCE Redating sphinx/Temp--Odysses 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

one day maybe, but before that day, not on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are of course exceptions to this rule: Atlantis, Ogygia, Scheria, Aeaea.--Odysses 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

why? these are factual articles on mythological subjects. the articles are not mythic themselves. dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknack, they certainly knew astronomy and poetry. My view is that they knew a great deal more than it is commonly believed today.

"They might not have been able to write it down, but then neither could Homer"

New findings indicate that there might be some short of writing earlier that previously thought, in some cases, as far back as 7.000 BC.

What puzzles me however is that Homer who composed 33.000 verses (presumably orally) knew exactly what the words write and letter meant.

...so he sent him to Lycia with lying letters of introduction, written on a folded tablet, and containing much ill against the bearer. He bade Bellerophon show these letters to his father-in-law, to the end that he might thus perish; Bellerophon therefore went to Lycia, and the gods convoyed him safely. "When he reached the river Xanthus, which is in Lycia, the king received him with all goodwill, feasted him nine days, and killed nine heifers in his honour, but when rosy-fingered morning appeared upon the tenth day, he questioned him and desired to see the letter from his son-in-law Proetus. When he had received the wicked letter he first commanded Bellerophon to kill that savage monster, the Chimaera, who was not a human being, but a goddess, for she had the head of a lion and the tail of a serpent, while her body was that of a goat, and she breathed forth flames of fire; (iliad.6.vi.) http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.6.vi.html

Officially we still believe that Homer didn't take advantage of this little tool. --Odysses 10:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

do you have any idea what the Ilias written on Mycenaean clay tablets would weigh? You'd probably need a fleet of triremes, one ship for each book. Maybe the "thousand ships" sent to Troy contained just the legal papers? dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alexander kept his Ilias under his pillow[2], probably written on papyrus.

Papyrus was in use in Egypt as far back as the First dynasty (3000 BC) and it was imported to the Mediterranean region. It was quite expensive, but it was available at the time. Ancient papyri are still uncovered today in Egypt and are still legible due to the dry climate, but hardly any found in Italy or Greece nowadays.

Clay tables were in use for cuneiform writing and Linear A and B writing. 95% of Linear B tablets contain (bureaucratic) accounting reports, since it was a cheap material. Nothing on literature or any "Sacred texts" was written using Linear B. Probably there was a good reason for this. Sanctuaries really knew how to keep their secrets. Unlike papyri, clay tablets survive for an eternity.--Odysses 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS. I am not sure if this is relevant to this article, but it certainly is an interesting discussion.

PS2. If someone considers appropriate to move this discussion to a more suitable topic, please do. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I am not sure how to do this. --Odysses 14:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed — WP is not a discussion form, and I am not even sure what point you are trying to make. You may want to try writing system or Middle_Bronze_Age_alphabets. You will need some sort of reference if you want to make a claim, in any case. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 23 June 2005 (UTC)

Move to Druidism?

In my experience, the term "Druidry" is most often employed by the OBOD – I believe it was actually coined by Ross Nichols. In order to invite contributions by (A) non-Druid scholars and (B) Druids not affiliated with the OBOD, would it not be preferable to move this article to Druidism? By-the-bye, what is the raison d'etre of this article as distinct from Neo-druidism and Druids? QuartierLatin1968 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'oh, never mind, this is the article Druids. Okay, then how about we move it to Druids?

Wiki articles are singular unless there's a good reason, so it'd be moved to Druid -- I agree that Druidry is an awful title. DreamGuy 23:18, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to point out that Druids is singular and Druides is plural (in Gaulish) but agree that common anglicised usage has Druid as singular, so that should be the term used here. --Nantonos 22:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Druid" is an improvement. "Druidism" is an untenable assumption: (was it an "ism"?) "Neo-druidism" is self-explanatory from its opening line. --Wetman 06:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

agree to a move to Druid. The intro should be rephrased accordingly. Plus we need 'etymology' (history of attestation) of both Druidry and Druidism (did e.g. the Victorians use these). dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Druid already exists as a disambiguation page – is that a good enough reason to use Druids instead? Alternatively, should we move Druid to Druid (disambiguation)? QuartierLatin1968 22:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should move to Druid (ancient) to be absolutely clear? I mean, there's a Neo-druidism page and whatnot – I think the disambiguation page is kind of useful where it's at. QuartierLatin1968 16:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "(ancient)" is required. What would a User be looking for? Druids or Druid are both fine, with a link at the head to Druid (disambiguation), where Neo-druidism will be found. Isn't that the plain way? Main meanings should never get shunted aside. --Wetman 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. I didn't care for my own suggestion very much on second thoughts either. Wetman, are you an administrator? I can't move to Druid since that page has a history. QuartierLatin1968 14:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved it. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 29 April 2005 (UTC)

Celtic priesthood?

What is the status of Strabo's suggestion that Druid != Celtic priest, i.e. that there were three kinds, of priests, druids, bards and vates? The bard article makes no mention, and the vates one I have only just created. Could/should this be compared with Vedic priesthood, Hotar, Adhvaryu, Udgatar? dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's the standard scholarly take. The Classical sources indicate such a tripart division, with a caveat: That is, bard/barddoi is a sub-class of the fili or poet class: oh heck, look here: http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/druid.html I swear, I really will work on this. Really. DigitalMedievalist 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Lisa

ok, but is there any continental evidence for such a "fili" class? Or is it only Insular Celtic? dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah; The Irish fili class would be equivalent to the class Greek authors called ovate and Roman authors called vates (see Strabo). Ovate and vates are etymologically related to each other and to Welsh gwawd, a word that used to mean "song" but gradually evolved to mean "satire." Most scholars reason that the vates would be present as "seers" at a sacrifice at which the druids would officiate as priests; this would explain some of the contradictory confusion between the druides and vates in Classical authors (Williams and Ford 1992, 22).

And I'm paraphrasing my own FAQ there, and I've given a good citation.

DigitalMedievalist 16:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Lisa

alright, alright. I misunderstood and thought you were suggesting the fili as a fourth class. `However, we already have faith as Irish correspondence to vates. If you wanted to reconstruct the proto-celtic classes, we would have

• the druids
• the vates (=ovates, faith, fili?)
• the bards

a fili being something like a rishi, maybe. (I understand that fili and faith are "often used interchangeably", however, one word has a continental counterpart, and the other, to my knowledge, doesn't) dab (ᛏ) 18:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you've got it. The Irish word best translated as seer is fáith, and yes, it's cognate with vates. The distinction between fáith and fili is very fine-grained, so I don't think using fáith instead of fili as the "primary" word is a problem. To give an Irish example, Fedelm, the Irish seer whose prophesy for Queen Medb in the beginning of the Táin Bo Cúailnge specifically identifies herself as a banfili, a "woman poet." After Fedelm says she can prophesy, Medb refers to Fedelm as a banfáith, a "woman prophet". DigitalMedievalist 03:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Lisa

ok, of course, I suppose, you can be a bard and a seer at the same time, at least in medieval Britain/Ireland. But wouldn't fili be closer to bard than to faith, seeing that a bard is a poet, and a fili is also a poet? I'm afraid neither the fili nor the bard article is very informative. In early (400 BC) Celtic society, the idea is of course that the titles were mutually exclusive, i.e. you could be a member of one of three classes, but that's of course unprovable. dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Late Druidic survivals in Flanders

In which way does this section refer to Druids? IMHO, it refers to the same kinds of superstitions you found in medieaval Scandinavia. I will wait some time for arguments before I possibly remove it.--Wiglaf 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong here, but try to move it somewhere, such as folklore of Flanders or something. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found this section to be interesting, however. Maybe it could still have a link from the druid article, as a source of "leftover pagan practices likely derived from druidism"? It is already difficult to get first hand accounts of old practices that I tend to find even the most derogatory and prejudiced christian assimilators useful... in their obvious attempts to be a nuisance. Gene.arboit 17:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The section is incontrovertibly connected to paganism as practiced in 7th-century Flanders, we'd all agree. What would be the relevance to Druids of medieval superstitions in Scandinavia? If this is not a red herring, in what sense could they be called "the same kinds"? Paganism in 7th century Flanders that was not Druidic would truly need to be explained and to be supported by some reference. How would it not be druidic, in pagan Flanders? The concrete details from the vita of Eligius are presented with a minimum of interpretation, precisely to avoid quibbles. But more essentially, what is the service to the reader that would be effected by isolating this first-hand information? What is the actualmotivation of this specious reservation? --Wetman 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Roman sources

While the following is from recognized sources:

«"The principal point of their doctrine", says Caesar, "is that the soul does not die and that after death it passes from one body into another" (see metempsychosis). This led several ancient writers to the unlikely conclusion that the druids must have been influenced by the teachings of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.»

As mentioned on fr:Discuter:Druide, in Les Druides of Christian-Joseph Guyonvarc'h and Françoise Le Roux:

• Metempsychosis is only found in two cases: Fintan and Tuan Mac Cairill.
• Pythagoras is quoted as saying that he owed his science from the hyperborean sages, which would be the druids themselves. So the reverse hypothesis might be worth mentioning as well as the one that, as above, is already said to be unlikely, though recognized.

Gene.arboit 17:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Applicability of the British Museum quote

I thought this note left at my Talkpage was too widely relevant not to be shared:

"On the one hand, good quote from the BM. On the other hand, its talking about many of our misperceptions (as the general public) being wrong. Which is sort of like telling Iron Age reconstructionists that Asterix is not completely accurate - its news to the general public, but not to them. Similarly the modern Druidic groups - not the meso-druids in white robes at stonehenge - are well aware of the historical reality and track historical and archaeological studies closely. So the quote lacks neutrality, in essence. --(NantonosAedui) 12:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If this means that the British Museum's comments on modern misperceptions of druids are "POV" and lack neutrality—and by inference do not belong at Wikipedia— then it's a classic statement that belongs here at Talk:Druid. Doesn't this also have volumes to speak of "POV"? --Wetman 19:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The British Museums comment on public misperceptions is fine, when used to describe misperceptions by the general public. It would be well placed in the introduction to the article, for example.

When used to describe all modern Druidry, on the other hand, it becomes POV because the target of the comment has been shifted. Its rather like taking a quote that says "the information on many Web pages is inaccurate or poorly researched" and then putting it on the Wikipedia front page as a cautionary quote.

So, the British Museum is not as you put it, POV. The misapplication of their quote in this particular context is, indeed, POV. --Nantonos 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

We trust to Nantonos to set the British Museum quote in its most correct context. --Wetman 21:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats going to require a new article, or at least a stub, on Meso-Druidry to talk about the 17th and 18th century meso-druidic revivals (Stukely, Iolo Morganwg etc) which is whare the pre-scientific, 200-year old scholarship that the BM decries originated. However that will be useful for the Neo-druidism article as well. The Druidism today section can then talk about different lines of modern Druidry - the continuations of the 18th century, masonic-style fraternal societies, the eclectic Neo-Pagan lines which are not especially rooted in any one ancient culture and are often disinterested in scholarship (out of date or not), and the Celtic Reconstructionist lines which track archaeological developments closely. None of whom are ancient druids; but the approach to scholarship does vary substantially. --Nantonos 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made a first cut at moving the quote to what seems to be a proper place, and to dissecting out to which strands of modern Druidry it applies. I'm sure it could be improved. In particular the material on cultural and religious aspects mainly applies to the revical-continuation strand, and is written that way, but also applies to the CR strand. --Nantonos 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor revisions to massive anonymous edit

I made many revisions to a largely useful edit, but instead of defending each one, as I began to do, I figure they are self-evident, except that I reinstated the section Social and religious influence which was simply deleted by the anonymous editor. The section could use some improvement, I agree. I also reinstated the section on Modern Neodruidism with its Main article:... heading. Should it be briefer than it is? Our anonymous editor cut the Neodruid references, which must duplicate efforts at Neo-druidism. --Wetman 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

image

how about either of these [3] [4] [5] -- date to 1845, from Old England: A Pictorial Museum of Regal, Ecclesiastical, Baronial, municipal and Popular Antiquities by Charles Knight [6]. dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Druids as a Hereditary Caste

Extracted from http://www.angelfire.com/dc2/druidsp2/, reprinted in several places, it is quoting from what little survives of the Celtic traditions in writing, being re-quoted, for example, at the above site, among many others.

"In contrast, the áes dána(Gaelic:Aois-dàna) were artists and belonged to no tribes. They included bards (traveling poets/musicians), filí (household poets and historians), druids (Old Irish: druí), metal workers, and other artists /artisans. It has been proposed that the positions were hereditary and hence composed a caste-like system, but role did seem to include some social mobility, albeit early in life. Also, the children of druids were not always druids. For instance, Conchobar_mac_Nessa_ was the son of Cathbad and Nessa. He grew up to be king of Ulster."

The Druids were a caste, but not *strictly* hereditary, correcting Julius Caesar. One needed "The Gifts" to be a Druid, either inherited, or derived from coincidence at birth. One cannot be a "Bard", if one lacks the skills to produce quality music... or a "Seer", lacking the inner sight. And while an individuals parents having musical talent might imply a good probability that the individual will have musical talent, it does not guarantee it, such was the "caste" of the Druids. It often ran in families, but fortuitous birth wasn't overlooked, talent is talent.

Replace the "musical talent" in the above analysis, with "intelligence and predisposition to prescience", paralleling the distinction between the role of the bard and the druid sub-castes, and the "rules" of the hereditary role in the "caste" becomes evident, basic breeding. As noted above, the social mobility to enter into the caste often occurred at an early age, this gives evidence of correlating to the point at which the "talent" of an individual was recognized. This evidence thus furthers the clarification of the hereditary role in this seemingly oxymoronic "mobile caste" social infrastructure, described by Caesar, the caste lines were drawn by inherent skill sets, sometimes known as "native ability", which often, but not always, paralleled lineage".

A "reference material" quote, further supporting this caste system having a basis in hereditary lineage is found at:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

"Dyfrig taught Saint Illtud (c. 425 to c. 505), the founder of the great school/seminary/abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr (English, "Llantwit Major") in the west of South Glamorgan. Illtud was considered the most learned person in Britain, expert alike in Maths, Grammar, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Scripture. He was “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, the writer implying that there was a Druid caste."

Such deliniations in "Cultural Specialization", or the more common term "Caste", apparently became an anthropological precursor, or foreshadowing, for the later Craft Guilds, which were discretely specialized in focus of work. Even "Surnames", when they gained popular use in the middle ages, often reflected the trade of a particular family, i.e. "The Miller's","The Taylor's". Of course, not all the family went into the "family trade", and even more confusing to genetic historians is unrelated individuals performing similar functions, in different regions, often carried the same "Surnames" although perhaps distorted by regional dialect. IE "Smiths", "Smythes", the later sounding the "y" as "I".

I am still seeking the original author of the Saint Illtud quote. If I can find it, I can weave this into the main article... I am seeking reference type material, not opinion, or "mysterious family lore".

The above quote appears over and over, in reference material around the world, yet not one mention of who originally penned the phrase “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, are we to assume that it was an unnamed historian of the abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr ?

Of course, on a final note, there is a disambiguation on the term "hereditary", with respect to bards, evidenced in the quote below.

http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/IrishBardsBonwickDruids/index.php

Irish Bards From "Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions" by James Bonwick, 1894

"There were hereditary bards, as the O'Shiels, the O'Canvans, &c., paid to sing the deeds of family heroes. A lament for Dalian ran--"

"A fine host and brave was he, master of and Governor,
Ulla! Ullalu!
We, thrice fifty Bards, we confessed him chief in song and war--
Ulla! Ullalu!"

"Hereditary Bards", are not always "Hereditary Bards"... One is "by Descent", the other specialized in a particular family's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.74.22 (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Gore as Arch Druid?

Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Source seems to be a single quote[7] from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; I'm not sure it warrants an inclusion here, but maybe in the article for An Inconvenient Truth. I'll copy this to that talk page. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a habit of assuming that when I see what looks like a new buzz word in a news article I can look it up on wikipedia :) Frankly I love the term "Arch Druid" how hard does one have to work for the environment before the press calls you that? Mathiastck 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say "no." If people called him a "tiger," we wouldn't be adding that note to the section on tigers.

Septegram 11:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing Problems

Someone seems to have meant to edit out a couple lines/paragraphs, and took out half the page by mystake, including the sources, external links and links to Wikipedias in other languages. I tried to restore it but leave out what I think that person might have meant to take out, but I'm not sure. If any of you people who know much about neo-druids feel the issue has been slighted in any way, feel free to add back in some of the stuff I deleted. - Kyle543 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

ADF

I noticed that there was recently an edit and a revert regarding ADF. While I agree that ADF did not belong right next to OBOD (as the two operate under two completely different philosophies), perhaps ADF should be added to the Modern section to show that there are organizations not based upon the Romantic movements of the 19th century. --Sidhebolg 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

questions

I have two questions which I would like answered: 1. Did druids "rule" or were they under somebody elses rule ie a lord. 2. Did druids conduct marriages, were they allowed to marry themselves or did they remain celebate? Thanks in advance!--(unsigned) pronounced (drood)

First, please sign any comments you add to this page. Thanks.

Druids were not "rulers" but they often held great influence due to their occupations - priest, judge, lawyer, doctor, etc... Druids were not like Christian priests. From what I know, they would have married just like everyone else, if they wanted to do so. There certainly would have been no need to be celibate. --John T. Folden 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Who would have ruled back in those days? I dont mean royal I mean rulers of small areas ie barons etc. Thanks again. --89.56.173.245 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Why doesn't it make any reference to The Undertaker's Druids? they could have at least a small amount of information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

you say Lughnassah, I say Lughnasadh

Changed article spelling of Lughnassah to Lughnasadh, as it corresponds to the existing wiki article. (there is an alt spelling section on the Lughnasadh page under Etymology) It seems to me like having it link correctly seems the way to go.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milovoo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Be'al?

Am I to understand that the Celts worshipped "Be'al" (an obvious similarity to Ba'el, the diety of the Caananites and an occasional reference to God) ? This is interesting considering that the Vikings apparently also had their mythological realm called "Nephelim" which is another Caananite reference to the Giants of the Old Testament. It would be NICE to see a citation or some kind of reference!!!--68.60.55.162 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the ba'el poster, as best I could. Bel, Belanus.... Be'al, is more from the Indian culture. 19th Century writers have tried to link Bel, to Baal... although very few scholars accept the relationship. While most writings flat out reject it, Baal of the Obelisk, and the Bel of the Maypoles, seem to exhibit a few points of "cultural congruity". "The Shining One", and "The Sun" , in conjunction with the tall upright objects like the Obelisk and Maypole may show "influence" between cultures.. However, there may be myriads of intervening cultures rather than a direct contact, or descendant. "Reflections of Reflections of Reflections", as I heard it said once. Etymologists are on a linguistic archeology hunt, and some of these "sounds alikes" are significant, and some not.

The Maypole is not Celtic. It more recent generations it came into some Scottish and Irish urban areas from the English influence, but never reached many rural areas. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Maypole is Germanic in origin, there is an interesting overlap of the Druids and the Germanic tribes.Their cultures traded elements, and shared territories. Remember, when the Pope decided to invade Germany, he did it with the cry that "Germany is filled with witches", when in fact, it was filled with Druids. I wonder, can Druids be called *strictly* Celtic, in origin ? I have my doubts. [RBI]

Looking through this, this article is actually really messed up. There is an ongoing confusion of the historical, Celtic druids with the fanatasies of the romantic revival. I'm going to try to fix a few of these, but don't have the time to do a thorough job on it right now. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read through and the problems aren't anywhere near as bad as I thought. I took out the opening bit about Stonehenge and Be'al. Why is "druids" capitalized as a default in this article? I'd also question the default of "druidry" in the cases where it would be more accurate to refer to Celtic religion. Still need to go through the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't have the heart to take out the Stonehenge comment, although, it needed removing. I had tried to leave some remnant of the Bel comment, as there is a grain of truth to it. However, Be'al I suspect is a derivation of an Indian continent name... not Belenus. The poster who studies the Vedas was trying to tie Bel to Baal, a not uncommon, but also probably not accurate point. The Bel and Baal connection appears to be a 19th century fallacy, in origin. The Stone Henge fallacy dates to the 18th century, during the Druid revival. Any idea about *any* connections to stone circles ? Is there any truth in that, at all ? [RBI]

followup on the capitalization issue

So, yeah, why are capitalizing "druid"? If there isn't a good reason I'm going to go through and fix it. Right now it's inconsistent. Also reiterating: Why are we defaulting to "druidry" vs. "Celtic religion"? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on accuracy of Druidic History

It is commonly known that Caesar's accounting of the Druids is inaccurate among Druidic historians. There are many other accountings that show them in their correct light, so the statement that Caesar's writings are "the most accurate" is a complete falsehood and should be changed to read "as accurate as the time and Caesar's agenda for change for the eradication of the Druid culture can be." I will not make that change as I am a mere student and there are many who are more knowledgeable than I. As for ADF being in a "modern" section, shouldn't the modern section be included here or did I miss something?24.136.66.15 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Brigid

Modern "druid" groups are covered in the Neo-druidism article :-) Beannachdan, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Druidism-Neo-druidism Euro-American

The last sentences of the first section don't really seem to be composed from a neutral point of view - I don't know whether they're factually based but they're definitely not in the same style. 129.234.4.1 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to here. Could you please clarify? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bards supplanting Druids?

The article states that the Bards started supplanting Druidic duties in classical times and completely replaced them by Christian times. No source is given, and the "Citation Needed" has been there for quite some time. Since it was noted in earlier sections about classical writers referring to Bards as a sect of the Druid caste, I'm going to remove the offending statement for now. Cuindless 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(user=Chaosa, not logged cause im also doing college work at college) Im not sure bout the revlance, but the info on this page refere mainly to the word druid, may i mention that there is a 35,000 year old religion druidism, this which predate all other people and religion currentley known on this planet. And they have also been linked to the stonhenge like formations in Africa. Also many have believed that they were world wide over 20 thousand years ago, which wouls suggest they could have been here fore the erecting of stne henge, but it is hard to tell with the occultic religions as we know have little records of them, thanks to the Christian, catholic and jewich people accross the world in mediaval ages, who wanted rid of all occultic and spiritualist peoples, me being spirirtualistic my self, know the true meaning is not religous.

Moved from Article

This unsourced section should probably be moved to the Paganism article, or something on the history of the Low Countries themselves, as it seems to be about local (Germanic?) Pagan (or pagan) traditions, and not about druids at all:

Low Countries

The people of the Low Countries were Christianized in the 7th century, through the efforts of Saint Eligius. One of the best glimpses of late Druidic practices comes from the vita of Eligius written by Saint Ouen, his contemporary and companion. Ouen drew together the familiar admonitions of Eligius to the pagans in Flanders. "It does not represent anything he said in a particular day in order" Ouen cautioned, "but is a digest of the precepts which he taught the people at all times."

Eligius in his sermons denounced "sacrilegious pagan customs." The following excerpted quotes from Ouen's vita of Eligius are instructive, for the negative description they offer of some late pagan practices in Flanders. In particular, he denounces the consultation of "magicians, diviners, sorcerers or incantators", auguries, and superstitions related to the moon. He refers to vetulas and "little deers" and iotticos, and to the invocation of (in the interpretatio romana) Neptune, Orcus, Diana, Minerva, Geniscus and as well as "devotion to the gods of the trivium, where three roads meet, [cf. Hecate], to the fanes or the rocks or springs or groves or corners" as idolatrous customs, and he frowns on Yule Midsummer celebrations. Further, he prohibits the wearing of phylacteries, "even if they are made by priests and it is said that they contain holy things".

The translator noted that vetulas was a reference to corn dollies. Other pagan customs enumerated by Eligius include "lustrations or incantations with herbs" and "passing cattle through a hollow tree or ditch" and "shouting when the moon is obscured" and adoration of or swearing by the sun or moon, and "diabolical games and dancing or chants".

But leaving it here for the record. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you Kathryn, articles like this attract a lot of small revisions over time and can slowly drift away and lose structure. I'm trying to do something similar at Wicca and support your sharpening of focus here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Caesar - Druids and Nobles or Druids and Knights?

Just one little word in the section about Caesar where it says - "Caesar notes that all men of any rank and dignity in Gaul were included either among the Druids or among the nobles, indicating that they formed two classes." I believe this statement is referring to the line from De Bello Gallico Liber VI, XIII

Sed de his duobus generibus alterum est Druidum, alterum equitum

I'm know nothing about Latin, but equitum seems to imply knight, not noble. (Although knights were likely of he noble class.) In any case, it implies horseman, or something. Am I quibbling, or just wrong? I'll hold off on making any change, because I'm unsure how exactly I'd like this to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantator (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The word 'equites' in Latin does literally refer to a horseman; however, the connotation in Roman society stemmed more from the idea of "someone rich enough to own a horse." As such, 'equites' developed into a Roman technical term for describing a kind of upper-middle/upper class formed by merchants, particularly. -Geoffrey Bain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.225.45 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gallic or Gaelic

Don't want to get involved in a revert war, so I'll bring it here. Wetman, I think you're wrong to say that "Gaelic" is intended in the first paragraph, which defines the people the Greeks called Keltoi and Galatae, and the Romans called Celtae and Galli, in modern terms. "Gaelic" refers to a relatively recent Celtic subgroup derived from Ireland, and is not a "loose" term at all. I think the first paragraph probably needs re-writing to make it clear that Druidry was practised in Britain and Ireland as well as the continent, but trying to claim the ancient Gauls and Celts fall under the term "Gaelic" doesn't do it. --Nicknack009 19:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm prepared to be wrong. Should Celtae and Galli be rendered "Celts" and "Gauls" then? --Wetman 03:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Can I change it back? --Nicknack009 07:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just done so, as it was my error. --Wetman 07:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

well, the modern term "Celtic" covers it all, Gaels, Brits, Gauls and Galatoi. So "Celtic and "Gaulish" is actually redundant. "Celtic" is enough, optionally expanded to "Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish" (I don't think there is any testimony of Druidism of the Celts of Asia Minor). dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

the modern term 'Celtic' does, yes, but the ancient term keltoi was not applied to Gaels nor to Brythonic peoples. --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It preserves balance, to give cognates for both terms. "Parallel thoughts require parallel constructions." --Wetman 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks. The word Gael is derived from a Welsh word meaning "raiders", which was the term they used to describe pirates from Ireland. We did not seem to have any overall word for ourselves at the time, and the suggestion is that this was gradually applied to the nation as a whole.

Plus, remember that the terms Celt and Celtic refers to unrealted peoples who spoke related languages. Cheers. Fergananim

Just spent a few days in "talking circle" with people who are referred to as apaches, sioux, navajo, and moslem by others and often themselves. All of these words are essentially pejorative, usually meaning raiders or generalized bad dudes. Part of our circle discussion was various Indian and 'Celtic' acorn recipes. Cheers to you too: User:Mike Logghe

So, is anyone going to add an actual Celtic etymology of the word, or shall I check it out and add it? (Assuming that the 'Greek' discussion has now stopped trying to make whatever point it was making). --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

How much of this is real anthropology and how much is just Geocities cut-n-paste? References would be appreciated. silsor 05:04, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

This is less than accurate, and needs a bit of work. I'll try to write something off-line in the next week or so. It's a bit too influenced by Neo Pagan and Celtic reconstruction to be historically accurate. DigitalMedievalist 16:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Great, thank you. silsor 19:08, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

I would add the following information to Druidry:

The Druids believed that trees were a sacred source of wisdom. They performed rituals and ceremonies in sacred groves of oak trees, and believed that the interior of the oak was where the spirit of the dead went.

Druids also used the black dye of Rowan for dyeing their ceremonial black robes, which they used for certain lunar ceremonies. They also lit fires of Rowan wood before battles, and incantations were spoken over the flames to summon spirits to take part in the fight and to combat evil forces. (Kornblatt)

I would ask for a source. silsor 19:28, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

The source for magical, Druidical fires is Forbhais Droma Dámhgháire, translated by Seán Ó Duinn, Mercier Press, Dublin, 1992, pp. 96-103. Herein the Druid Cith Rua says:

"... let the troops go out to the forest and collect rowan wood for that is best in our circumstances."

To counter this magical fire, the Munster Druid, Mogh Roith, had his soldiers gather their own stack of Rowan-wood over which he pronounced the following incantation after it was set ablaze

"God of druids, my god above every god, he is god of the ancient druids.It will blow (the wind), may it blow a low flame (to burn) the young vegetation, a high flame for the old (vegetation), a quick burning of the old, a quick burning of the new, sharp smoke of the rowan-tree, gentle smoke of the rowan tree. I practice druidic arts. I subdue Cormac's power. Cécht, Crotha, Cith Rua - I turn them into stones."

As can be seen from the reference above, Rowan was said in Irish tradition and folklore to have been used by Druids in their magic and incantations.odubhain 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of this comes from Neo-Pagan "magick" websites, such as http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/rowan.htm or http://www.angelfire.com/ks/larrycarter/Rowan/Tree.html The Rowan does get mentioned in the Finnish Kalevala, which is not as old in the version we see, as it's made out to be, though it's old material. Wetman 20:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The text he proposes seems to be a direct cut-n-paste from the whitedragon.org site, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it anyway. An introduction like

The Rowan (sorbus aucuparia), Mountain Ash, Quickbeam, has the ability, perhaps more than any other tree, to help us increase our psychic abilities and connections.

just sets off warning bells for me. silsor 23:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

There are in fact ways of researching this claim other than trying to find a non-existent reference in the literature. Recently while living on the Ucayali in Peru I encountered a young Irish woman who had been studying with a supposed shaman who was teaching her their methods of determining the medicinal and psychic properties of plants. Her intent was to return to Ireland and do this work with plants indigenous to Ireland. Possibly an enterprise in flapdoodle, but having become an afcionado of yage, I would bet more on her success than on your scepticism. I.e. don't burn all your mountain ash yet. In fact I have two in my back yard I had better spend some quality time with now that you mention it.

72.16.47.119

---

User:Timlane adds:There was thought to have been at least one Druidic University in Britain that taught many subjects including poetry, astronomy & the ancient Greek language. Is there anything to this (note the passive of non-attribution)? "University" is an anachronism of course. Wetman 23:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. The words "we are told" alarm me as well. This article seems to have a tendency to drift towards "what we want druids to have been" rather than "what druids were". silsor 00:10, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

There is a single reference by Julius Caesar in the context of hearsay that all druids trained in Britain. This is not taken as literally as the statement above would have it. The reference to "ancient Greek" is particularly suspect in the British context. And I really will try to write something for this page, but there's a dissertation deadline looming. . .

DigitalMedievalist 04:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)Lisa

---

I just noticed this bit: "Of their oral literature of sacred songs, formulas for prayers and incantations, rules of divination and magic, not one line has survived"

It's odd in several ways, among them the reference to "lines," a print convention, (one would use verses for spoken poetry), but more particularly, if we ignore the "oral" context we most certainly do have prayers and incatations preserved in several Continental Celtic languages. DigitalMedievalist 02:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Links to authentic Celtic Druid prayers and incantations would be a welcome addition for this entry, anyone must agree! Wetman 08:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hear hear. If I'm not mistaken, though, most of the ancient dedications are pretty formulaic (e.g. "Person X to God Y dedicates this offering"). QuartierLatin1968 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The very ancient (ie Gaulish) ones tend to be short dedications, yes, although longer texts are also known. Irish material has a bunch more, however, although post-dating Christianity as a state religion. --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Classes in Greek at the old Anglesey Druid U.

" Druidic teaching center on Anglesey (Ynys Môn) centred on magical lakes that probably taught many subjects including poetry, astronomy & possibly even the ancient Greek language." Oi! I suppose any attempt to remove fantasy would hardly be worth the ensuing edit war... So hard to keep a "Druidry" entry sane and sound. Wetman 08:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since no citations were forthcoming, I've revised the report on Anglesy U. to read "No ancient sources mention a druidic teaching centre on Anglesey (Ynys Môn), an island off the northwest coast of Wales, which neo-Druids contend was very advanced."

If this is not correct, an ancient mention of a druidic centre on Anglesey should be added.--Wetman (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Field of Magic

where do druids fit in the field of magic? i mean their name breaks down to magician, but how were they important in the history of magic--Kobe2408 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The name does not "break down to magician", but they were often referred to in Latin as Magi, perhaps because of a perceived similarity. Redheylin (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Past tense vs. Present tense?

Druids today seem to be covered in Neo-druidism and are mentioned a it later in the article, but shouldn't they be mentioned in the lede? Maybe a sentence like: "Druidry in its modern form is practised by neo-druids."? --Conor (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because that sentence cannot be supported. You can have "today, neo-druids practise a fantasy version of druidism"! Redheylin (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

My view would differ from the two of you: I don't think that in a short, pithy introduction there is place for a relatively minor sub-topic as Neo-druidism. I think the presence of the sub-section further down the article is fine, and to promote it would give undue weight to a topic that does, after all, have its own separate article. (PS: If there were to be a mention in the lead, it would need to be more scrupulously neutral then either of these, IMHO.) Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Line in Article

"However, the druids left no written accounts of their own practices, so much of this hypothesis is complete speculation, as is most of the above article." Sounds really professional and encyclopedic, doesn't it? I'm just passing through the article, but is there some way to express the uncertainty and speculation (in fact, done earlier in the article) better than this, tongue-in-cheek as it may be? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed Fetishism

"Despite neo-druidic believers, it is unknown whether or not women were historically allowed to serve as druids.[citation needed]"

Someone let me know how to cite the lack of knowledge. 216.37.249.35 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Etymology is at variance here with Wiktionary

This page says (correctly as I believe) that the English word is taken from Latin; Wiktionary claims it's taken from Old Irish; can they be reconciled by someone with access to a good dictionary? Marnanel (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The etymology given here is a report of sources. No harmonization is needed.--Wetman (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary is wrong claims no such thing, and rightly so. The Old Irish term is a continuation of the Old Celtic term from which the Latin word was derived. The English word isn't taken from the Old Irish. The OED has the important note that "the English use follows the Latin sources, whence it was derived, rather than native Celtic usage". This is an important point to remember when dealing with terminological confusion. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The current etymology section is the result of naive perusal of assorted dictionaries. It is completely unaware of which points are certain and which are speculative. It could do with some expert attention. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That might be something you'd be willing to do. I'd do it myself, if I were competent.--Wetman (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

if you dont know already its pronounced (drood) =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.178.244 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Druids in Vedas of India

It is well known that the Rig Veda is the oldest available texts of mankind. The rig veda has a graphic account of the fight between various families all desecended from a common ancestor called Bharata with the members of Anu and Druhyu clans up against the Yadus and Purus. The Druhyus are described as driven out of the north western part of India from where they migrated to far off lands. They are nevertheless believed to have carried some Vedic Brahminical practices. Hence the priestly castes and groups among the Druids. Some scholars have even pointed out that the word Brittania is in realty entymologically derived from the Sanskrit Bharata-tanuja meaning those born in the line of Bharata.The descendents of Anu settled around Iran. {{unsigned|Gv365|08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)}

As someone who has studied Celtic Studies and Indian Culture, I see it as entirely possible that the Aryan vedic culture and the Celtic druidic culture could be interconnected, especially with the evidence of a stone-age culture stretching from France, through Spain and along the African northern coast all the way through the Mid-East and ending in northern India. This can be seen in the placement of early 'rock-house' shrines, probably connected to animistic ancestor worship mystery cults which predate written history, which can be found from Europe to the Near-East.

see Celts and Hindu and Celts and Aryans two books by Myles Dillon.72.204.69.79 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't cite Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article

The person who removed the "Pliny the Elder" citation for the source of the "sun, moon, and stars" deification, please pay attention. Wikipedia isn't cited, Pliny the Elder is/was cited as the source, Wikipedia just happens to have a copy of the original quote in the Coligny Calendar article. Thanks in advance.

When I seen the title, I thought it was hysterical. In College, the professors get quite upset if you use Wiki as a reference. The humor was found where Wiki did not like using Wiki as a reference either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanthegreen (talk • contribs) 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Female Druids

Someone keeps adding that there were female Druids to this article in the lead. The only evidence we have for Druidism is from Classical scholars, and they do not say anything about female Druids Electraawoman (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)There are other sources, which is what I tried to cite, but the sources were deleted (the Miranda Green cite, Freeman discussed below, Ellis also). The classical writings only offer limited information on the Druids, and some do refer to druidesses. This is a faulty premise for concluding Druids were only male.

(yes, I know there is an 1824 that claims they did, but I have no idea). Trying to check out some of the claims from that book and a couple of neo-Druidism sites shows either nothing, or that the actual quote says 'prophetess', etc. Or that the Latin term 'Dryades' was used, which is not a Latin or Greek word meaning Druid.

Electraawoman (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)I think dryades means "tree nymph", and I don't know the history of the translations, but Phillip Freeman, a classics professor, in "War, Women, & Druids: Eyewitness reports and Early Accounts," states on page 49, "The fourth century A.D. collection of imperial biographies known as the Historia Augusta contains three short passages involving Gaulish women called "Dryades" ("Druidesses")." His book then lists the 3 instances. I'm not a linquist and do not know the history of the translation, but I think a professor of classics should be considered as a source on the subject, and he translates it as "druidesses."

Strabo gets quoted as mentioning Druidesses who worshipped Bacchus, but he doesn't actually use the word Druidess. That there are later mentions of Druidesses is of course correct, but they come centuries after the period for which we have contemporary writers writing about Druids. Doug Weller (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Electraawoman (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)I, Natalie (electraawoman), keep adding that there were female druids. There is ample evidence, from scholarly research and including legends and folklore, of female druids. I included the cites to the scholarly articles discussing the existence of female druids in Cambridge Publications, British History publications, etc., but someone deleted the legitimate cites to legitimate scholarly articles and books. I have put them back into the page, as they are legitimate references. Lewis Spence is considered more of a Neo-Druidism writer, and his work is not scholarly or reviewed by academics. The gender comment appears biased and not based on scholarly research on the topic. Despite this, I did not delete the statement or the cite, as that would be very rude and defeats the purpose of allowing people to judge information based on their own research.

Please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes.

I got rid of the gender comment. Electraawoman (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)The gender comment is still in the article. It has simply been moved lower in the article under "History." The gender statement is still on the page.

Although Lewis did get at least one review that I can find, I am happy to and have replaced that reference with one to Ron Hutton's book on Pagan religions.

It is not rude to delete stuff that is wrong, not well referenced, etc. I see now that you have replaced your earlier references (and I assume that you are also editing when not logged in, so some of the edits show up as IP edits) with one to Miranda Green. You didn't give her full name nor did you give the page number which you need to provide when citing a book for a specific issue. Could you provide a quote please from her so we can see what she says?

Electraawoman (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)In response (from electraawoman): I did put the author's full name, Miranda Green, with the publishing company, Hudson & Thames, with the page number, in my original cite. I even linked to the page in the google books, p. 84 I believe ( I will check again), but that reference was deleted for no cause. That was my original frustration. My source was legitimate; it was not an opinion or incorrect information. It was information from a professor's book, written to discuss the Druids. The book is even listed in the further reading section on the same Wikipedia Druid page. It seems questionable to delete a cite to a recognized book on the subject. I will put the link back into the cite, with the page number, so that it links to the page in google books. I also linked to scholarly articles, with page numbers, that spoke to the topic. These were also deleted. These sources were not misinformation. I do not understand why they were deleted, several times.

I agree that later Irish mythology talks about female Druids, but of course that doesn't mean that there were female Druids in classical times,

66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)There is also no proof that there were not female druids. Lack of references to them in limited classical writings does not mean they did not exist. The limited references to the time period do not discuss every aspect of Druids. To make such a broad conclusion seems questionable. The classics were not the only sources of information. This is the faulty premise that concerns me. So, to make the assumption that there is no evidence of female druids based on classical accounts dismisses other sources. 66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

or at any time, as that is mythology and not contemporary report. So I've put that back in, rewording it slightly (I don't think you can have 'mythical legends'. 66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Electraawoman (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Additionally, there is a reference to an aunt of "Ausonius", named Dryadia which means "druidess". As Ausonius' grandfather was banished by the Roman bishop of Rouen, this can be considered a reference from the Romans. Peter Berresford Ellis discusses this in "A Brief History of the Druids, p. 18. People may disagree on the translation. At any rate, and even if translations cause disagreement, "classical" references are not the only source discussing Druids, and to state that they were "only male" is a large assumption. Considering that very little concrete information has been found by archaeologists, it concerns me to see such a broad statement, especially when there are other sources that refer to female Druids, and those sources and cites are being deleted for no apparent cause.

Ron Hutton says "All the various authors agree that these priests were male, and that the formal religion of the Celtic peoples was mediated through men." He then discusses Irish women shown in Irish literature as "gifted with prophecy, skilled in magic and capable of communing with deities...But the absence of priestesses is remarkable, especially as many other peoples, including the Romans, had them." He mentions the story fromStrabo and Pomponius Mela, pointing out that "it was related at a time when so little was known about western Gaul among Graeco-Roman authors that it was more or less over the edge of the world" akin to India where Roman writers reported that there were people with dogs' heads and that Strabo thought the story dubious.

66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)In response: I can agree to a cite from a recognized author. That is great. However, that does not mean that other recognized authors' viewpoints, publications, articles and sources can be deleted. It is understood that the Druids are hard to study and the evidence of their existence is hard to locate. I do not know to which authors Ron Hutton refers, but there are other respected authors that speak differently and discuss female druids. These should also be included.

I think the gender statement, since uncertain, should be removed completely. My scholarly sources say there were female druidesses. Yours say there were not. We should either include both statements, with sources for each, or simply remove the gender statement completely. By completely, I mean take it out of the entire article, not move it under history. Either way makes sense to me.

We should be able to reach some sort of agreement here. By the way, what you did when you put 'Neo-Druidism' into the reference was not really ok, you should have, as you did, bring it up here, or just deleted the whole thing with an edit summary explaining why.

66.32.194.168 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)I did not want to delete someone else's cite. I originally just marked "citation needed" when I first read the article. However, the first cite was by a questionable author, and it seemed strange to include that cite and delete cites to professors' publications. I think we can compromise and include both of our sources. That's the fascinating thing about Wikipedia and academia, many people coming together with different research and viewpoints. It makes all of us dig a little deeper. Thank you for responding. Doug Weller (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ WP:TALKPAGE and WP:TALK as you have really messed this section up and it is extremely hard to see what I wrote and what you wrote. Hutton is talking about Roman and Greek period authors.

Electraawoman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Again, Ellis is a renowned classics professor. And even he acknowledges that there is a reference to an aunt of "Ausonius", named Dryadia which means "druidess". As Ausonius' grandfather was banished by the Roman bishop of Rouen, this can be considered a reference from the Romans. Peter Berresford Ellis discusses this in "A Brief History of the Druids, p. 18. I did not "mess up this site." I merely included cites from respected authors. I assume that is a goal. And again, they were deleted.

Your 1824 book is not a 'scholarly source'. I don't know what else besides Miranda Green and Ellis you see as scholarly. Doug Weller (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Electraawoman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)It is a legitimate published book, in addition to the myriad of scholarly cites I discussed above, and included in the article, which were then deleted.

I checked Miranda Green on Google books, she says nothing about there being Druidesses, she just mentions the Finn myth, quite a different thing. Doug Weller (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that you say the classics aren't our only source of information. I can't understand this at all, what other sources of information are you suggesting there are other than the Roman and Greek Classical authors? Nothing else is at all contemporary, and a 12th century myth can't be seen as a serious source of information about Classical Druidism. Doug Weller (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Electraawoman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)The later myths and oral traditions of the people of the region are as valuable as the Classical accounts. The Greeks and Romans were known for their misunderstanding and condescension towards the Druids. They are certainly not the ultimate guide on Druids. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics Part 6: V. 6 By James Hastings p. 790 briefly discusses later mentions of Dryades, saying that they appear to be only sorceresses.
Druids Or a Study in Celtic Prehistory: A Study in Keltic Prehistory By T. D. Kendrick p 96 "One asks, of course, whether this reference to dryades, or druidesses. really constitutes legitimate evidence of the survival of druids and druidism in the 3rd century. All that we know about these women is that they were fortune-tellers, such as we might find among many peoples, and ii is possible that the name dryades. or some form of name like it, was bestowed on them by these two authors through a misapprehension based 011 mi imperfect knowledge of the status and functions of the true druids. They might have represented, in fact, to the uncritical eyes of the biographers of the emperors, the remaining Keltic exponents of a known druidic practice ol earlier times, that is divination ; and so might have been called druidesses. regardless of the question of their actual connection with the real druidic order.

A more serious consideration is that there is some slight evidence of the existence among the continental Kelts of priestesses in the proper sense of the word (p. 140). and these were not, to our knowledge, called druids or druidesses. We cannot assume, therefore, that anyone performing a religious rite, or practising divination, in the Keltic lands was a member of the druidic order." Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Electraawoman (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)None of this justifies a blanket, concrete statement that Druids were only male. There are too many conflicting sources and viewpoints.

The sources for females are late, basically after the Druids were more or less wiped out by the Romans. And why did you quote Freeman so selectively? You added a quote by him on 4th century mentions of Dryades, but left out the sentence "In all of these, the women may nor be direct heirs of the Druids who were supposedly wiped out by the Romans—but in any case they do show that the druidic function of prophesy continued among the natives in Roman Gaul." Perhaps you can explain why you left that out? Doug Weller (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

well, the article has a "medieval sources" section. If there are Middle Irish legends involving druidesses, fine, there is no problem with mentioning the fact. As for antiquity, we simply have to accept that "Druidism" is only known from outsiders' descriptions. What little other evidence we have, such as Severa Tertionicna and her witches, or the Coligny calendar, cannot be brought into correspondence with these accounts. --dab (𒁳) 20:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

From The Druids by Peter Berresford Ellis, "Several Greek and Latin writers speak od Dryades or Druidessess, and the existence of such female Druids is certainly confirmed by Celtic sources. One has to bear on mind the fascinating role of women in Celtic society as opposed to their position in other European cultures. The rights and position of Celtic women far exceeded those of Greece or Rome." 72.204.69.79 (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

About female druids, I found this article -- http://www.unc.edu/celtic/catalogue/femdruids/ leaflord (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am guessing the writer was a student there, I can't find anything else about her or by her and see [8] (the female druids page is a subpage of this). Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Druids in written records after 2nd century

The statement about druids disappearing from written records after the 2nd century A.D. is patently untrue. Ausonius mentions druids in the 4th century -- nostalgically, perhaps, but in reference to having druidic heritage. Druids appear in the literature of early medieval Ireland, and the stories of St. Patrick confronting druids seem to have a historical basis. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

the early medieval references to "Insular Druids" are a case apart, and we treat them under "Late druidic survivals". Afaik, most scholars think they are baseless and inspired by Roman ethnography.

In Gaul, the druids had essentially disappeared by the 1st century CE. Ausonius may be a notable exception in that he "nostalgically" reminisces about druidic heritage in the 4th century. Confirming that druidry in his time had long ceased to be a living tradition. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to make clear that the association of Britain with druidism rests on two pieces of evidence:

• Tacitus' mention of "druids" in Anglesey in 61 AD
• survival of an Insular Celtic cognate, albeit in different meanings ("magic", "seer").

That's it. Obviously, the British did have some sort of religion, administered by some sort of priesthood, like any other pagan society, but the above is the only evidence that this should in any way be considered cognate or indeed identical to the Gaulish class of philosophers. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

human sacrifice

people trying to make a big deal of the reports on human sacrifice being hostile Roman propaganda should be aware that human sacrifice was practiced in pretty much every Iron Age culture as a matter of course. Not frequently, not to the point of blood-thirsty excess, but as a form of highest ritual to be resorted to in very special cases. This is well documented in the human sacrifice article. Case in point, human sacrifice was outlawed in Rome itself in 97 BCE, all of 50 years before druidism was penalized for human sacrifice under Tiberius. Gladiatorial combat, abolished as late as the 5th century CE, originated as a form of human sacrifice. In the wider context of Iron Age religion, it is really rather unremarkable that the druids should have performed human sacrifice. The question is, were these sacrifices particularly cruel or frequent, as the Romans seem to imply, or did Roman writers just opt to make a big deal of an ethnographic factoid in the service of some agenda of their own. Referenced academic opinion on this point would be highly welcome, but can we please do without the fluffy "they were peaceful tree-huggers vilified by the evil Roman imperialsts" apologetics. --dab (𒁳) 09:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see we have a dedicated Celts and human sacrifice article. It's not very good and could do with some attention. --dab (𒁳) 10:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Worth considering that, despite Rome's official outlawing of human sacrifice in 97 BCE (on which I take your word), it may well have continued to be practised - I have seen assertions (which I can't track down at this moment) that, for example, Vercingetorix and others captured by Julius Caesar were 'executed' by being ritually strangled as sacrifices to Mars in 46 BCE. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit referencing "Cunliffe, Barry. The Celts (Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, 1979) p106-111"

There's no such book. I'm wondering if another writer has been confused about the title of one of Cunliffe's books and that this may have come from that other writer. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Error noted. The title will be changed shortly to The Celtic World. (ISBN 0-07-014918-6) - Michael J Swassing (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tried to point out that that was the title of the 1979 book last night but it wouldn't save and I gave up. Given that the statement comes from 5 pages, can we have some quots please? I'm also not happy about it being from 1979, how about something more recent from Cunliffe as some of his opinions have changed since then. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Romans outlawed druidism. The article has been aware of that for ages. It is also a truism that a purely oral tradition will go extinct irretrievably as soon as the tradition is broken for the first time. However, the implication of "ethnic cleansing" and of the Romans hunting down the druid clergy Spanish-Inquisition-style is preposterous. If that turns out to be the content of the Cunliffe reference, the article will still only say "in the opinion of Cunliffe (1987)", since that is certainly far from any mainstream assessment of the situation. But before it comes to that, let's see a verbatim quote. It would seem far more likely that Cunliffe is simply being misrepresented. --dab (𒁳) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Lebor Feasa Runda"

The "Lebor Feasa Runda" is apparently[9][10][11] a self-published book purporting to be an English translation of a German translation of an alleged Gaelic text that was lost. I wonder how the book's author can pretend his "translation" had been "highly anticipated" considering that nobody had never even heard of this text. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, complete bollocks, and probably does not deserve mention in this, or any other, Wikipedia article. --dab (𒁳) 19:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur. If I'd noticed it had been added I'd have removed it myself. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this intriguing nevertheless, already because it is so bad (8th century BC "ogham tablets", lol). If it gains any sort of notability, it should be mentioned on Neo-Druidism though, not here. Akins appears to be known as something of a con artist, so the immediate supposition would be that he made it all up. But he attributes it to a German typescript he was given by the widow of an ex-Ahnenerbe member, Henry Thorenson. Now Thorenson appears to be this individual (d. 1991). Strictly speaking, there are two possibilities: Akins came across the findagrave.com webpage, noted the Nazi era uniform and also noted that the widow had conveniently passed away in 2008, amd made up a story about how he got his "manuscript" based on that alone. But theoretically, it is also possible that Thorenson had made up the text, and Akins translated the made up German "translation" into English in good faith. Either way, whether he translated the entire thing , or whether he constructed this thing himself, Akins must be an extremely poor "Celtic scholar", either not noting it was pure fantasy of an ex-Nazi emigrated to the US, or failing to make up a better text himself. In the latter case, the act of disgracing the reputation of the deceased would be added to his sins. From his rants in defense of his book, I surmise that he has in fact made up the text himself, as he surprisingly doesn't take the position of "hey, I'm just the translator from the German, I haven't seen the Gaelic, so I don't know if it's genuine", he seems to be convinced for some reason that the text that according to his own story was "translated" for Ahnenerbe and which came into his possession without any scrap of evidence of the Gaelic (not even translation notes or glosses by the translator?) is genuine. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

dab: «Strictly speaking, there are two possibilities...» -- There is a third possibility, that Akins himself created that findagrave.com entry, with a digitally faked gravestone. He has a previous history with such photos. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, I got him. He made it all up. here he is kind enough to post an excerpt of his English translation of the alleged German "original". He is busted in line 1, revealing that he doesn't know any German, as his German "original" is actually a machine translation of his English "translation".

English "translation"

Long ago, before the dawn of the ages, there was naught but the depths of a vast emptiness which was the goddess Domnann

German "original"

Vor langer Zeit vor der Dämmerung des Alters, gab es wertlos aber die Tiefen einer beträchtlichen Leere, die die Göttin Domnann war

actual grammatical German translation of the English

Vor langer Zeit vor der Dämmerung der Zeiten, gab es nichts als die Tiefen einer riesigen Leere, die die Göttin Domnann war

"Dämmerung des Alters" is a machine translation of the English expression "dawn of the ages", impossible in German. wertlos aber die Tiefen is again a machine translation of "nought but the depths", completely ungrammatical and even comic in German. I don't know what translaton software would come up with beträchtlich ("considerable") for vast, but that is already a marginal concern at this point.

Now I don't mind WP:FRINGE frauds, but if you're going to press with your fraud, you should at least put some effort into it. This is a fraud of such abysmal quality that it takes an educated person about 30 seconds to see through it and about ten minutes to lose interest in it even as a fraud. --dab (𒁳) 11:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Great work there Dab. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the tip on the German, dab. Rudolf Hess? Winston Churchill? It gets more grandiose all the time. The mighty forces arrayed against him! I don't know anyone who didn't immediately laugh at this as a fabrication. However, if it ever gains any traction among the credulous, it could be added to Neodruidism to point it out for what it is. I'd be very surprised if it doesn't continue to sink, though. The only "people" trying to discuss it seem to be socks of the author himself. He has turned up in a number of online venues, his tactic and phrasing being much like his insert here: "Have you heard of this controversial work?!" Straw men and hollow men abound. Heh. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 18:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, it is obvious it is fake. But nobody appears to have allowed for the possibility that it is a "genuine" Ahnenerbe fake so to speak (not even the purported translator -- I daresay this would be my first guess if I was given a purported German translation of an "ancient Gaelic manuscript" produced by the Nazis), which would at least have made it an interesting item of the "occult roots of Nazism" type of topic. But it isn't even that, which makes it a modern fake of a Nazi fake I suppose. --dab (𒁳) 19:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of a similar "druidic" forgery that appeared, with less grandiose claims, in the early nineties. Doug Monroe, I think his name was. But it was clear his Neopagan fake of a Welsh fake was based on the Barddas... even to the extent of him offering to show people copies of the "secret", "discovered" ms... which others alleged he'd ripped out of the NYC public library copy of the Barddas. Sordid. There was online buzz among the credulous here and there for a few years, then it sank. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Also in the Celtic line of business, this one's tongue-in-cheek and does an infinitely better job at it! I put the non-existent article for the Akins fraud on my watchlist as soon as I caught wind of it, and in a way I'm glad to learn that it has taken this long for a reference to pop up on the wikipedia, but of course it's still one too many. The whole background thing reads like a Dan Brown story at its least credible (and I sincerely hope Brown's not seriously considering writing a novel about it). Cavila (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

this one is excellent! Judas College! And he isn't even trying to make a quick buck out of his scamming expertise. Mr. Akins looks like a positive mule now :) --dab (𒁳) 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

dab: «I don't know what translation software would come up with beträchtlich ("considerable") for vast...». WorldLingo does, for one. It translates the entire sentence fragment exactly as shown above, with all the errors, word-for-word. Sizzle Flambé (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears Mr. Akin didn't even leave his computer chair when he made up that yarn. He just googled for English German translation and copy-pasted a paragraph of his book to WorldLingo for the benefit of the mysticwicks.com forum. He really mustn't have a very high opinion of the intellect of his prospective readers. --dab (𒁳) 12:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: His story has changed, to assert that he posted a computer translation from English to German in order to keep the original German text confidential! (My reply notes that's not what he'd claimed.) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And now he claims the text was "revealed by the gods"! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

that's actually the more sensible claim than "ancient Gaelic ms. translated by Ahnenerbe", because it isn't in any way verifiable, and depending on your conception of 'the gods' may or may not be true.

of course, there is no indication of any sort of rationale why his English text should be accompanied by a German machine translation. Why include a machine translation? The only reason you would do that for would be if you want to communicate your English text to German speakers who cannot read English. That clearly wasn't the context of the forum post in question.

so, Mr. Akins should stick with "revealed by the gods" and just admit that he tried to give some extra credibility to his former "translated from the German" narrative by including a bogus "original". He could then do away with the obscurantist "manuscript" hoax and simply go ahead and found a druidic sect explicitly based on unverified personal gnosis. --dab (𒁳) 13:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

possible late survival of Insular druidism

"late survival" as in 7th century, not 12th century, not to mention 15th century. Obviously pagan tradition morphed into folklore everywhere in Europe, but that's not "survival of druidism". By AD 700, both Ireland and Great Britain were unambiguously Christian.

The "persecution of bards" in the high middle ages would properly belong on the bard article. There is no harm in mentioning bards here, but our article still claims

Medieval bardic tradition in Wales and the mystic visions of seers (Welsh: dryw) as late as the time of Owain Glyndŵr has been taken as evidence of continuity of druidic tradition from antiquity by some writers.

without giving us any reference as to who these "writers" may be. On the face of it, a bard is not a druid, and a seer is not a druid, even though he may be referred to as dryw in Welsh (otherwise we could claim that the Roman Catholic Church is a "survival of Roman paganism" by virtue of the title sacerdos). It there is a hypothesis of "survival of druidism" in Welsh seers of the high or even late medieval period, that would be very interesting, but it would also need to be attributed. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed more of this, as it appears to be nothing more than uncited romantic nonsense. As dab says, we will need to know who these "some writers" are before we can decide whether their opinions are worthy of inclusion here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is fair to mention "bards and seers", but details on the "persecution of bards" in medieval Wales evidently belongs on the bard article. I am not sure what to do with dryw "seer", there may be an article in this, but we need better references. It may conceivably also be a section here, same as fáith redirects to Vates. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning dryw as the name of Regulidae or Troglodytidae (which is it?) and druidic augury, this is something that popped up with google as I compiled the paragraph, but I didn't pursue it. Still needs to be done properly. --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Celtic culture has a few tidbits (see the latest revision of the etymology section), but if you prefer to delve a little deeper, Ó Cuiv's article (see references) might be useful. Cavila (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

hm, we lost Regulus there, but at commons:Regulus_ignicapillus I find a Welsh name Dryw Penfflamgoch, while commons:Troglodytes troglodytes has simple Dryw. It would seem to be correct that both Regulus and Troglodytes are called Dryw in Welsh, but the wren is "the" dryw, while the firecrest is the "red-headed dryw". --dab (𒁳) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

wait a minute, I just note that penfflamgoch is in fact a translation of ignicapillus, while kinglet is a translation of regulus (or is regulus a translation of kinglet??), while the word wren is in fact a loan from a Celtic word that would have meant as much as kinglet. Also, how can the English name of the wren be a Celtic loan when the bird is called dryw in Welsh and dreoilín in Irish? This has probably very little to do with the topic of "Druid" or even dryw, but it calls for further investigation. Somewhere down the line, there must have been a confusion of wrens with kinglets. Consiering that one is an unsightly brown colour while the other is blazing yellow, I wonder if the Celts had a tradition of using blind men for augury. But maybe the "Celtic loan" theory is simply wrong, at least OED is unaware of it, stating that wren is "obscurely related to OHG. wrendo, wrendilo, Icel. rindill". --dab (𒁳) 15:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

this is more involved than I assumed. There appears to be some sort of Pan-European consensus (not specifically Celtic at all, but perhaps taken from Aristotle) that Regulus and Troglodytes is really the same bird, one wearing a crown (fire-crested wren) and one not (true wren). It seems that only since the 19th century was the bird called "crest" or "kinglet" in English, before that, it was just "a wren". The legend is that the smallest of birds is also the king of birds. Now the true wren is the smallest bird (at least in the British Isles), and the firecrest (or goldcrest) is obviously the king of birds, by virtue of wearing a crown.

it is unclear how Celtic mythology and the dryw name ties into this but at least it is clear that this bird was "special" not just in Celtic druidism but in Europe more generally. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If the suppression of Druidism in Britain is ascribed to the Romans, as no such authority existed in Ireland their continuing existence there until the advent of Christianity is more than likely. His 7th century biographers record the druids as adversaries of the 5th century Christian missionary St Patrick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikpandha181 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And Patrick himself does not. Hutton says:

The classic role of a Druid in the life of a medieval Irish saint was as an evil pagan magician, who is defeated by the hero of the hagiography, using the power of the true god, and so is either killed or converted In the words of the editor of Irish saints' lives, Charles Plummer, 'they meet us at every turn as the chief, if not the only, opponents of the new faith'. They appear as such in the earliest Irish literature and play the same part into the seventeenth century, falling foul of a succession of Christian holy men of whom the first and greatest was Patrick himself. They are his main opponents in Muirchu's life of the saint, which was written in the late seventh century and as such is one of the oldest surviving Irish texts. It describes how Patrick confronted the high king Loegaire, whom he found surrounded by different kinds of magicians and soothsayers to whom Muirchii gave various Latin brand names. Of these, the magi were those commonly translated by scholars as Druids. They were certainly the most important and the most hostile to Patrick, who defeated them with a series of miracles in the course of which their two leaders perished. Muirchii makes plain, however, that he is not merely, or even primarily, recounting a native tradition but seeking to assimilate Patrick to the great figures of Christian literature. He expressly compares Loegaire to the biblical king Nebuchadnezzar, who kept court magicians, and Patrick's duel with one of them to St Peter's contest with Simon Magus. Another parallel, this time implicit, is with Elijah opposing the priests of Baal. Significantly, we possess two actual letters written by the historical Patrick about the nature of his mission, over two centuries before Muirchu's time. They never mention Druids, nor dramatic confrontations at Tara: his problems are all with local kings or hostile fellow Christians.

So 'probably' would apply better if you said Patrick doesn't mention Druids, so they probably either weren't there or were not important. But any of these 'probably' statements would be original research so we shouldn't use them. Why even assume there were Druids in Ireland? Dougweller (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

"Jargon" tag

« The earliest record of the name druidae (Δρυΐδαι) is reported from a lost work of the Greek doxographer Sotion of Alexandria (early 2nd century BCE), who was cited by Diogenes Laertius in the 3rd century CE. » has been tagged {{jargon}}. Why? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There is jargon after dates. --86.12.24.209 (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why you also tagged « A druid was a member of the priestly and learned class active in Gaul, and perhaps in Celtic culture more generally, during the final centuries BCE. They were suppressed by the Roman government from the 1st century CE... » ? But "CE" and "BCE" are not "jargon"; they specify whether a year-number is set in or before the Common Era. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted his edit. There's no jargon. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)