Talk:Druid

Contents

1 Derived from Ancient Greek? 2 Gallic or Gaelic 3 Classes in Greek at the old Anglesey Druid U.= 4 Move to Druidism? 5 Celtic priesthood? 6 Late Druidic survivals in Flanders

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] (http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Heracles1.html). 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] (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html), 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 Jun 2005 (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)

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

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)

---

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)

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)

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)

"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 Apr 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)