| Author |
Message |
David McElrea
|
 Posted: Wed 21 Apr, 2004 12:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Allen wrote: | Quote: | | Likewise everything I have encountered regarding the worship of gods comes from clearly biased Christian sources. Does anyone know of a stronger basis for historical Northern European pagan practices? |
Hi Allen,
You are right in saying that there are almost no useful records of the old religions. We do have access to the myths of the Nordic peoples(the Edda), as well as the Irish (Lebor Gabala, Tain Bo Cuailgne, etc.) and Welsh (Mabinogion).
There is often an assumption that what we have is in fact tainted by "clearly biased Christian sources". I don't think that is fair, really. The Edda was first written down by Snorri Sturlson who was a devout Christian, but he approached his task of recording the "old tales" with great reverence.
Most of the European myths we have (Northern or otherwise) survived because of the dedication of monastic copyists to accuracy in translation. The monk who provided us with the written version of the Irish Tain Bo Cualgne in the "Book of Leinster" illustrates this point well-- he ends the Tain with the word "Amen" and "A blessing on all who will memorise the Tain faithfully in this form and not put any other form to it." And "I who have copied down this story, or more accurately 'fantasy', do not credit the details of the story, or fantasy. Some things in it our demonic lies and some are poetical figments; some seem possible and others not; some are for the enjoyment of idiots"
Its interesting to observe his sense of duty to the tale itself, particularly as it clashes with his Christian sensibilities-- still he asks that it be preserved accurately. I think this is often the case. The redactors who provided us with the "Book of Conquests" (Lebor Gabala) obviously didn't mind adding in genealogies that resounded with the Biblical ones, yet through them we understand who the gods of the Irish were as well as the Gael's beliefs regarding the afterlife.
The Mabinogion is something different again, and I am not as familiar with it. It seems to have been first written down in the mid 11th century, but it preserves the grist of the tales.
So, most of what we know of the northern pagans comes through the mediation of monks' quills. The remainder (mostly) comes through archaeology, which can suggest things (such as the use of hallucinogenics in rituals, the practice of human sacrifice etc). But it can only suggest. There is much that remains unknown.
For the keen, two books that may give some insight regarding the "Christianisation" of Europe are:
"The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to Christianity" by Richard Fletcher
"The Faith" by Brian Moynahan
Neither author is completely unbiased one way or the other-- nor would I agree with every point, but both provide some wonderful insights into this age, including the survival of some pagan customs into the early middle ages. Neither would see an essentially pagan population though.
Cheers again,
David
|
|
  |
 |
|
Herbert Schmidt
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Apr, 2004 9:29 am Post subject: Commoners and swords |
|
|
To get back to the original topic...
I think that commoners did indeed own and wear swords and other weapons.
Quoting from the "Sachsenspiegel" a lawbook written by Eike Repgow, a saxonian knight about 1230:
Zweites Buch:
(Second Book)
67 ....Wer wegen eines Verbrechens angeklagt ist, der darf nicht mehr als dreißig Männer vor das Gericht mitbringen, wenn er dort erscheint und die Männer dürfen außer dem Schwert keinerlei Waffen tragen.
(The one being accused of a felony is not allowed to bring more than 30 men to the trial when he shows up and the men are not allowed to wear any weapons beside the sword.)
71/2 ...Während des geschworenen Friedens soll man außer dem Schwert keinerlei Waffen tragen, es sei denn...
... innerhalb von Burgen, Städten oder Dörfern, überall wo Wohnungen oder Herbergen sind, darf man auch nicht das Schwert mit sich führen.
(Meanwhile the sworn peace one should not carry any weapons beside the sword, with the exception....
... within castles, towns or villages, wherever there are cottages (living quarters) or inns, it is forbidden to carry not even the sword.)
Drittes Buch:
(Third Book)
2 ...Denn diejenigen, die in des Königs täglichem Frieden stehen, die sollen keine Waffen tragen.
(... and those in the kings daily peace shall not bear any arms.)
Lehenrecht:
67/1 ...(Gerichtstag) Bevor er vor seinen Herrn tritt, soll er auch Schwert, Messer und Sporen, Hut, Haube und Handschuhe und alle Waffen ablegen.
( (day of trial) Before standing in front of his master, he shall also lay down sword, knife and spurs, hat and cap (bonnet, helmet?) and gloves and all weapons.)
There are more laws redarding or involving weapons.
So obviously the commoners and normal people, even as it seems peasants were allowed to own and carry weapons and swords. They are also particarly obliged to come to certain summons armed and to use their weapons in defence of women and fellow people.
It is interesting that throughout this lawbook there is a sharp distinction between the sword and other weapons. It is always spoken either of weapons or sword. If both are spoken of, both are mentioned. Obviously there was a distinct value for the sword.
Hope I could help
Herbert
PS. Please excuse my poor translations
|
|
 |
|
|
Jeanry Chandler
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Thu 22 Apr, 2004 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Allen W wrote: | I am inclined to agree with Jeanry's characterization of paganism in practice (with the assumption that such gods were largely understood as communicative devices to simplify less anthropological concepts) but base this only on my understanding of human nature and the tendency to rationalize the dominant religion into a form each individual can deal with. Likewise everything I have encountered regarding the worship of gods comes from clearly biased Christian sources. Does anyone know of a stronger basis for historical Northern European pagan practices?
P.S. Jeanry, I apologise in advance if I have mischaracterized your position. |
No, I think you hit the nail right on he head. Our understanding of indiginous Northern European religious practices stems not only from Christian monks and chroniclers, as is amply described in how the Irish saved civilization, but from Roman and Greek sources who witnessed these practices first hand (as well as from archeology and other evidence such as from coins and other artifacts). Both dark-age Chrisitans and Classical era Romand and Greeks tended to distort the image they portrayed, both for intentional propaganda purposes, and due to simply seeing things through the lens of cultural bias. Romans such as Tacitus and Caesar for example confidently assigned various Roman gods to the various Celtic and German tribes they encountered: the Suebi worship Mars, the Marcomaani worship Hermes, the Boii worship Jupiter, etc. We know that this is far from the reality. We also know that starting from the infamous example of King Arthur and going back from there, cynical people tried to use the popularity of their own ancient heritage to justify modern institutions such as the Medieval British Monarchy.
The way these folks looked at the world, and their gods, was very, very different from the worldview of both Christianity and Classical Civlization. When Alexander the Great for example asked the Celts what they feared, they told him "...only that the sky will fall on our heads." A Christian would have answered "I fear Jehovah". A pragmatic Roman or Greek would have said "You, my lord." Roman and Greek pagan religion started from essentially the same place as other European cultures but grew to have more in common with the influential cultural practices of the Mid-East than with their original European roots. Even as Rome, which started as a fairly typical European republic, grew the cancer of Monarchy and Empire, it was also increasingly overcome with foreign religious practices of the East. It is well known that Christianity was only one of these religions.
Celts, Germans, Goths and other tribes of Northern and Western Europe viewed their gods differently, as they viewed the world and each other differently. As Allen implies, these gods were neither as centralized or individually mighty, nor were they the kind of stern anthropromorphic patriarchs which religions of the east used to justify the existence of their Kings: they were instead multifaceted, multiformed combinations of ancestors, animals, and forces of nature, and their 'worship', rather than begging for forgiveness from some angry tyrant, was most commonly done around the farm or in the spring near the home, than at some formal church.. One did not need go to church regularly to be endlessly reminded of how to live, because the religious practices matched the culture of the pepole pracitciing it. One instead approached the gods when they were needed to express an idea or to enhance the significance of some important act. Again, I refer to Eglis saga as a good example. Egil deals with his religion but a few times in his life, such as when he detects poison in a drink using a sorcerous cantrip, or when he makes a shrine of a horses head to mock and curse his enemies among the Monarchy. Celtic gods were rarely portrayed as humans at all, more often as animals, and in all European religions, mortal heroes were rivals to the gods in the legends which make up their religions.. I think frankly you can see a lot of parallels in the religions of the indiginous tribes of North America, such as the Iroquois, Hopi, Lakota, etc.
As for human sacrifice, pepole were killed by the community, that much is sure. The romans made much of this, professing great outrage. Of course, killings in the colliseum, vendettas, or routine crucifiction of escaped slaves was perfectly acceptable. The Celts among others were headhunters and had some barbaric practices, but we don't know why they killed the people later found in bogs in denmark and other places. Were they criminals? Killers? Traitors? Perhaps unwelcome missionarires?  One thing is for sure: no indiginous northern European pepole I am aware of engaged in the kind of systematic genocidal slaughter that the Romans did, nor is there any evidence of the sort of depopulating wars, universal human misery and constant persecution which took place later in Europe after Christianity had gained true control over the people. Nor were they nearly as stinky, as they did bathe! I for one would rather live in a La Tene era celtic settlement, or Minoan Crete, than say, 16th century England any day.
JR
"A strong people do not ned a strong leader."
Emiliano Zapata
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Fri 23 Apr, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The civilian use of swords was not confined to Central Europe. This is from the Irish plea rolls ( http://www.nationalarchives.ie/pleas_3.html ) in 1312.
"Tipperary: William Okally, charged with the death of Richard Laudefey, whom he must have slain feloniously at Burgagemylagh, comes and defends etc. And Richard Blonchard [and others], jurors, say that when William Okally lay in the embrace of a certain woman, Richard came up and, moved by jealousy, took William by the feet and dragged him from the said woman, and as William returned, Richard again dragged him away, and each retiring a little way they dug up sods and threw them at each other, and when William had thrown a sod there came out thereof a small stone and hurt Richard, and feeling that he was hurt, with a rush he drew his sword and struck and severely wounded William. Feeling this, William immediately drew his sword and therewith struck and wounded him fatally so that he died. Asked if he could otherwise have avoided death if he had not done this, they say no, because assuredly if William had not thus struck Richard, Richard was prepared to strike him again and kill him. Asked further if before or after this deed he was charged with larceny or any other evil charge, they say no, and he is not of ill fame; wherefore let him be committed to gaol to await judgment."
Both men are commoners. They begin (after being dragged "from the embrace of a certain woman") by throwing clods of dirt at each other, but both have swords on them.
On the sidetrack of "indigenous Northern European peoples", I don't think we know enough to attribute any virtue higher than the Romans. After all, we have no direct records of these peoples' behaviour - it is all pre-history. They could easily have engaged in genocidal warfare, and we would hardly know it.
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jeanry,
In some ways our discussion is changing-- that's fine.... I just wanted to distinguish between evidentiary argumentation as relating to the beliefs of Medieval commoners vs the nature of European pagan belief.
For me the key lies in your statement: | Quote: | | I admit I do not have any proof, none exists either way, IMO. |
Simply put, you are right that there is no proof that medieval peasants were pagan. There is a superabundance of evidence that they were Christian. The documentation for the beliefs of Medieval Europe (common and noble) is overwhelming-- from the disputes between different expressions of the faith to pilgrimage, saints shrines, relics, passion plays, "secular" music (which was frequently religious, even though not "ordained" by the church), poetry, literature. It's all there!
If you wanted to say that the population of Europe was "Christian" in belief (i.e. believing in the essentials of Christianity) but still largely pagan in mentality (the strong emphasis on warfare and a warrior aristocracy, or the assignment of semi-magical properties to relics, for example) we would be in agreement.
I know you disagree with me on the fundamental point-- I just don't understand "why" when everything points in the opposite direction.
To the other issue, regarding the nature of pagan belief in Europe, your last post raised some questions for me.
You wrote: | Quote: | | Celtic gods were rarely portrayed as humans at all, more often as animals |
Why do you say this? None of the Celtic myths describe the gods as having the forms of animals (as their standard form).The only god(dess) I am aware of who regularly took on animal form was the Morrigan "triad" who would appear on the battlefield in the form of ravens or crows. Is there any other instance where the gods take on animal form? In asking this I am thinking specifically of appearing to men (vs. magical transformations such as found in the Children of Lir). It seems a false dichotomy to suggest that there was a belief in brute "anthropomorphic patriarchs" on the Roman side and a communing with the forces of nature on the Celtic side. In finding parallels between their own gods and the gods of the Celts the Romans give us a pretty good reason to assume that the Irish myths are right in presenting the gods as human in form.
You say that: | Quote: | | I think frankly you can see a lot of parallels in the religions of the indiginous tribes of North America, such as the Iroquois, Hopi, Lakota, etc. |
I'm going to be impertenant here and ask if you would consider yourself neo-pagan. I only ask because the above statement began to make sense of some of your previous arguments, particular the non-theistic, spirit/forces of nature perspective. A number of neo-pagan practitioners have filled in the blanks by drawing on the shamanic traditions found in Siberia and North America (native)-- it sounds like that is where you are coming from to me. If so, while I will still disagree with you on the principle of history, I will try and be more cautious in my wording (I'm not trying to patronise-- I just don't want to offend unnecessarily).
It seems as though we are destined to disagree on a wide range of topics  I have never had any great love for the Classical mythology, but I do not think the "ethnic" (for lack of a better term) religion of the Romans and Greeks was as morlaistic as you think. The gods were capricious and are described as commiting incest, rape, murder, being drunken, and many other things. That is not to say that there was no morality amongst the Greeks and Romans-- there was indeed! There morality is more likely to be traced to the philosophers, though, than to the priests. Read Plato's Republic and you will get an incredible snapshot of the development of the concept of "righteousness/justice" (dikaiosune) amongst the Greeks.
You are right in saying that Rome became a religion-magnet. Most people, by the time of the first century A.D. were likely involved to some degree in one of the imported "mystery religions" (Isis, Mithras etc). It's unlikely that those religions had much of a formative effect on the established religion, though.
| Quote: | | mortal heroes were rivals to the gods in the legends |
Well said! We agree on that  I also think you are right in saying that the Celtic pantheon shows elements of the old nature religions (sun gods for instance-- Apollo would be the Mediterranean equivalent ) and ancestor worship. They, like many other ancient peoples, traced themselves back to divine ancestors.
Anyway, I didn't want to write another monster of a letter, so I'll leave off here.
Yours,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanry Chandler
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject: Pagans, commoners, weapons |
|
|
| David McElrea wrote: |
Simply put, you are right that there is no proof that medieval peasants were pagan. There is a superabundance of evidence that they were Christian. |
There is a super-abundance of evidence, as you put it, (much of which you pointed out in this and the other thread), of the remarkable persistence of pagan practices, (let us not forget that pagan activities of this sort were often used as the basis of accusations of witchcraft during which entire towns were virtually depopulated to feed the bonfires) well into the late Renaissance and beyond, despite the danger of conducting such practices (let us also remember these practices were common particularly among the common folk, Aristocrats did not dance around the maypole or leave milk out for faeries or throw valuables into springs or bogs.) There is a super-abundance of evidence that the authorities of the later Medieval and Renaissance period were sufficiently terrified of what they considered to be persistent non Christian practices among the common folk that they insituted many widespread atrocities and massacres, ranging from the Albigensian Crusades to the Inquisition through the Witch Trials.
Finally, there are the many examples such as the surface conversoin of 'new chrisitians' as in Spain hiding a secret allegience to an older traditoin, the rather painful dynamics of the penetration of Christianity into scandinavia( following it's traditional top- down introduction to that society,) and all the other points I raised .
| Quote: |
The documentation for the beliefs of Medieval Europe (common and noble) is overwhelming-- from the disputes between different expressions of the faith to pilgrimage, saints shrines, relics, passion plays, "secular" music (which was frequently religious, even though not "ordained" by the church), poetry, literature. It's all there!
|
As is the record of constant warfare between church and commoner, the eagerness of the population for any alternative to the theological repression they lived under...
| Quote: |
If you wanted to say that the population of Europe was "Christian" in belief (i.e. believing in the essentials of Christianity) but still largely pagan in mentality (the strong emphasis on warfare and a warrior aristocracy, or the assignment of semi-magical properties to relics, for example) we would be in agreement. |
A strong emphasis on warfare, and on miracles, seems to me to always be a part of every historically significant branch of Christianity
| Quote: |
I know you disagree with me on the fundamental point-- I just don't understand "why" when everything points in the opposite direction.
|
We aren't going to convince each other of anything, I think thats safe to assume..
| Quote: |
You wrote: | Quote: | | Celtic gods were rarely portrayed as humans at all, more often as animals |
Why do you say this? None of the Celtic myths describe the gods as having the forms of animals (as their standard f
|
Just look at the art. Celtic, Germanic, and scandanavian art portray animals and geometric shapes. Roman and Greek art portrays elite anthropromorphic deities....
I don't mean to be rude, but I do not have time to go through a basic primer on celtic mythology, nor is this appropriate venue. I'd recommend reading Peter Barresford Ellis (The Celtic Empire, and The Druids in particular), as well as works by Barry Cunlieff, Nora Chadwick, and basically anything you can find written in the last 10 years on Celtic life.
I'm sure some people on here could discuss the animal forms of some Scandanavian gods, such as Wotan.
In the interest if brevity I'll cite only one example. Perhaps the most important, widely recognized of the Celtic Gods was Epona, the horse goddess. She is depicted in artifacts, coins, and religious art from Bohemia to Iberia. In England as the famous 'white horse' of Uffington in Berkshire. Here is an examples on a coin:
| Quote: |
I'm going to be impertenant here and ask if you would consider yourself neo-pagan. I only ask because the above
|
You could not offend me. I'm not a "pagan" per se, nor am I filling in any spiritual blanks here, nor do I run around with a pyramid on my head or wearing moccassins. As I've stated previously, my sources here are primairly military history.... more Osprey MIllitary books than any kind of New Age spiriitualism. Though I'm probably more sympathetic to the idea of forces of nature over the idea of anthropromorphic gods, Noah's ark, adam and eve and etc., I am no philosopher, and I frankly despise pretty much the entire "New Age" movement, precisely because it seems to have no regard for the truth.
I should note that I have met 'serious' pagans who are quite sophisticated and grounded, as well as Christians.
| Quote: | | and many other things. That is not to say that there was no morality amongst the Greeks and Romans-- there was indeed! There morality is more likely to be traced to the philosophers, though, than to the priests. |
One constant argument I have with religious pepole, is that that morality of religious tradition is NOT best evaluated on the basis of it's purported teachings, of the drunkeness and sex in the stories. Hindu religion discusses lots of sex, and yet, Hindu culture remains fairly conservative about it. Indian films for example are all "G" rated by American standards. The secular religion of marxism promises ultimate freedom, but delivers ultimate slavery. At the risk of offending, I could also point out that Christiantiy preaches love and forgiveness, but historically, has seemed to foster the opposite.
| Quote: |
Read Plato's Republic and you will get an incredible snapshot of the development of the concept of "righteousness/justice" (dikaiosune) amongst the Greeks.
|
The republic is a good example of the increasingly elitist attitude of the Greeks, which saw it's full flower in the Hellenistic Empire of Alexanders descendants, and later among the Romans....
It's not, by the way, that the Greco Romans had no moraility in their religion, they had morality, the Romans in particular started out very simple and pious. But their culture and religion was under the influence of middle eastern contacts, and their gods were mostly anthropromoprhic Sky gods. Celts, as one contrasting example, had many more earth gods, there was more of a balance. The ultimate symbols of the OLD pagan religion, pan and gaea, are both earth gods.....
Whats the key cultural difference? Examine the diffierence between the treatment of women in Scandanavian or Celtic society, with that of Greece or Rome, or anywhere in the middle east. Think about it.
There is a similar diffierence in the balance of power between Aristocrat and commoner, which brings us (FINALLY) back to the original subject of the armed or disarmed peasant.
JR[/u]
"A strong people do not ned a strong leader."
Emiliano Zapata
Last edited by Jeanry Chandler on Sat 24 Apr, 2004 2:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanry Chandler
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Felix Wang wrote: |
On the sidetrack of "indigenous Northern European peoples", I don't think we know enough to attribute any virtue higher than the Romans. After all, we have no direct records of these peoples' behaviour - it is all pre-history. They could easily have engaged in genocidal warfare, and we would hardly know it. |
Actually, we have the archoeological record, which informs us perhaps better than you may realise, and more importantly, we have the records of the enemies of these people, the Romans and the Greeks, (among others) of their interractoins with the Northern Barbarians over the period of nearly a century, meticulously detailed.
Even through the contemptuous lens of their enemies, the reality is clear. When the Celts, for example, defeated the Romans, as they did time and time again (sacking the city of Rome, as many are aware, at least once in the 4th century BC) they demanded tribute, plunder, and the agknowlegement of their victory( which the Romans, in at least one famous instance, were loathe to give, to their "woe") and then went away. The Romans lost again and again, went back to regroup, rethink their tactics, and prepare for the next time. When they finally won, they inevitably broke their enemy, slaughtered the warriors and the priestly class, sold half of the non combattants into slavery, and set the other half up as a crippled vassal-state (in the process replacing democratic institutions with monarchies).
Caesars diaries illustrate the latter half of this patttern quite well.
DB
"A strong people do not ned a strong leader."
Emiliano Zapata
Last edited by Jeanry Chandler on Sat 24 Apr, 2004 5:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jeanry,
I think we are agreed that we don't agree-- the arguments you've brought up with regard to the "evidence" for the continuation of pagan beliefs through to the renaissance are, in my mind, not valid ones-- and I have put my fairly normative position forward (normative in the sense that it is what most historians believe). You don't agree with that position and it is probably not worth continuing to argue over it.
In re: the Celtic gods vs. the Roman, you say that the Romans had an "imbalance"-- all "sky gods" vs the Celts who were more "earth gods" (and therefor more balanced). The Roman gods, again, were anthropomorphic vs the Celtic gods who were primarily seen in the guise of animals.
If you look at the Roman pantheon, most of them are associated with earth or with abstract concepts (I am assuming you know that Pan and Gaea are Hellenic in origin, not Celtic). They do have solar deities (sky gods), but these are not in the majority. The gods of Ireland were a similar mix-- Cromm Cruaich, In Dagda, Nuada, and Lugh, the chief gods, are all solar deities. Anu/Danu seems to be an earth goddess; Mannanan the god of the sea; Angus Og, love; Oghma, knowledge; Dianchecht, medicine; Goibhnu, god of smiths; The Morrigan/Macha/Babd, associated with war; Brighid, fertility and fire; and so on....
You wrote: | Quote: | | I don't mean to be rude, but I do not have time to go through a basic primer on celtic mythology |
Well it was a bit rude, but thats ok-- I have a thick skin While I may be deluding myself, I don't think I need a primer in Celtic mythology. I have read it and studied it for over twenty years now. I appreciate the pic of the coin-- and the reminder of Epona. It brought back to mind a ritual carried out by kings amongst some of the Celtic tribes involving having erm... relations with a horse (the horse symbolising the goddess of the land). Through this "marriage" sovereignty over the land was taken up by the king. I, for one, have always liked to think this was not a literal act. One never knows.
You mention animals in art. The lamb appears frequently in Christian art, as do eagles, lions, oxen and men. It doesn't mean these are our gods (the lion and lamb are, as you are probably aware, symbols of Christ). Many of the Celtic gods were associated with or attended by certain animals. Few of them are considered to exist in the form of those animals. All of the gods and goddesses I have mentioned (and we could include the Brythonic gods) were perceived in anthropomorphic terms. Some of them were symbolically represented in animal form (as Christ is by a lamb and lion, or as Zeus was by a bull)-- this does not mean the Celts thought of them as boars, ravens and horses. If you want to know how the Celts saw thought of their gods you are best served by reading their myths.
If (as you may or may not be saying) you feel that many of us don't know how to read myths-- that only the unenlightened look at them and think, "this is what these people believed", I would respond by saying that the "demythologised" reading is a totally postmodern one.
Back to the issue of Celtic gods normally being represented as animals-- we don't know what the animals on coins signify. Do they respresent gods, tribal symbols, or coats of arms? The chalk horses are also a mystery. Were they symbols of Epona? Tribal markings? No one knows-- so its not quite fair to suggest that these obviously make your point. You are probably aware of the Gundstrup Cauldron-- there we are sure we are seeing gods, and they are anthropomorphic gods. Images of gods have survived in Ireland, both in wood (amazingly-- peat is a wonderful substance) and stone-- these gods are, again, anthropomorphic.
An ill-defined idea of "divine" boars and bulls etc. might be hinted at in the ancient stories, but they are by no means the primary expression of deity.
The same goes for the Nordic gods-- animals may have been seen as companions, but if you read the myths, they are talking about glorified "people", not abstract forces best envisioned as animals.
Yours,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanry Chandler
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This wil be my final comment, since I think we are definately talking past each other.
I never said the Romans or Greeks had "all" sky gods, I said that they were more emphasized at the expense of the others, and thus out of balance, not in terms of the sheer numbers of gods in the pantheon, but in terms of their spiritual and political importance in society. There is no 'great father' in Celtic mythology comparable to Jupiter / Zeuss, and though the Germans do have Wotan, I think the anthropromorphic interpretation of this god evolved over time, from Classical influence. Perhaps some of our scandinavian colleagues can further enlighten us about this. Finally, the Irish pantheon is not necessarily representative of the entire Celtic religious world, particularly that of the continent.
I grant that you have studied Celtic Mythology, and so have I. What I am seeing in your commentary however does not match the inerpretation of what I've ben reading from current historians, ranging from those experts I have already mentioned, through my Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology, which categorically identifies the White Horse with epona. In short, I think you are taking a Christianized view of these ancient people, just as you are with Medieval peasants, which is essentially dated and naive.
Since you ventured to theorise as to where Iw as coming from with my point of view, I'll tell you what yours reminds me of, a sort of polite, reasonable, and quite biased "C.s. Lewis" type Christian view of history. Your analogy of Christian animals is well described, but I think fundamentally flawed. Christians do not worship lambs, nor do they, as you put it, have marital relations with them, at least not as part of any mainstream religious practice.. Nor do they worship sacred groves, or pools, or fish such as the Salmon.
I imagine that we will see over time which view turns out to bear the closest correlation to the continually emerging archological data and further analsysis of current and newly discovered classical texts. The same will bear out for the original issue of paganism in medieval Europe. In the meantime, perhaps we will find other areas which we do agree on.
DB
"A strong people do not ned a strong leader."
Emiliano Zapata
|
|
|
|
|
|
Felix Wang
|
| Posted: Sat 24 Apr, 2004 8:35 pm Post subject: Assuming a professorial tone ... |
|
|
| Jeanry Chandler wrote: | ...Actually, we have the archoeological record, which informs us perhaps better than you may realise, and more importantly, we have the records of the enemies of these people, the Romans and the Greeks, (among others) of their interractoins with the Northern Barbarians over the period of nearly a century, meticulously detailed.
Even through the contemptuous lens of their enemies, the reality is clear. When the Celts, for example, defeated the Romans, as they did time and time again (sacking the city of Rome, as many are aware, at least once in the 4th century BC) they demanded tribute, plunder, and the agknowlegement of their victory( which the Romans, in at least one famous instance, were loathe to give, to their "woe") and then went away. The Romans lost again and again, went back to regroup, rethink their tactics, and prepare for the next time. When they finally won, they inevitably broke their enemy, slaughtered the warriors and the priestly class, sold half of the non combattants into slavery, and set the other half up as a crippled vassal-state (in the process replacing democratic institutions with monarchies).
Caesars diaries illustrate the latter half of this patttern quite well.
DB |
The first issue is one of apples and oranges. You cite the documented history of Greece and Rome, but there is no documentation of Celtic or Teutonic behaviour towards any peoples except their southern neighbors. When Rome conquered Greece, they did not engage in genocidal behaviour; nor did Egypt suffer extinction at Roman hands. The Romans did treat the Celts ruthlessly. When the Celts took over Gaul, do we know how the Celts treated the former ruling class? There must have been one - but there is no documented record. Archeology doesn't prove or disprove genocide, either. There are plenty of Celtic carry-overs into and past Roman times, since you have been citing them yourself. So, by the written record, we have no idea of whether the Celts might have behaved ruthlessly towards the former inhabitants of France. By the archeological record, we have evidence the Romans did not annihilate the Celtic culture.
Second, you make a serious error in analyzing the situation with 20/20 hindsight. Yes, the Celts /Teutons did not try to annhilate the Romans while they had the chance. Why should they? From their point of view, they have successfully swept down into Italy time and again, destroying Roman armies, happily pillaging and looting. What would convince a barbarian chieftain that this golden goose should be cooked?
Then consider the Roman point of view. Rome was sacked once, the barbarians have invaded and slaughtered tens of thousands of Roman soldiers, pillaged, looted, took slaves - again and again. It takes Rome decades to recover from the political and economic impact of each of these incursions. Now, finally, Rome has a chance to put an end to these disasters once and for all - who is going to argue the barbarians should be treated nicely (and given yet another chance to sack Rome!)?
|
|
|
|
|
David McElrea
|
| Posted: Sun 25 Apr, 2004 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jeanry,
One last correction I have to make-- and in doing so, I am drawing from the Irish sources. The Dagda (the "good god") who was generally seen as the overlord amongst the gods (sometimes as king, others as a sort of "elder-statesman") is also known as the Ollathair, which is to say "the All-Father". So there is a parallel to the Zeus/Jupiter and Wotan figure, at least within the beliefs of the insular Celts. The Romans themselves seemed to identify Taranis, Belenos, and others from the Continental pantheon with Jupiter. While you may disagree with their doing this, it shows at least that they saw some kind of correspondence of attributes.
Thanks for your responses in all this. While we disagree at some points. I appreciate your sense of admiration for the Celtic and Teutonic peoples. Unlike you, I think Christianity "bettered" their lives-- this inspite of the tremendous failings of the Church to live up to its teachings throughout history. Like you, (and Lewis, whom you have already mentioned-- I wouldn't see him as naive, incidentally ), I find that there is much to admire within the Pre-Christian cultures of the north and west-- Indeed, I wish some of their virtues were as highly prized by people today.
As you say-- at this point, it might be best to toddle along to other subjects. Perhaps we'll be arguing side-by-side some day, instead of "across the table".
Yours respectfully,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Bubar
Location: New England Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 120
|
| Posted: Sun 25 Apr, 2004 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
It used to be said that Haiti was "90% Catholic, 100% Voodun".
Now, it's said "70% Catholic, 30% Protestant, and 100% Voodoo."
Busy little beavers, those Protestants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic