With all due respect, this idea that the "first flower" laws were somehow less despicable or oppressive because of the attitudes toward sex within the historical context, and / or becuase it was some sort of male supremacy thing or done to protect the foreign baron from his subjects... all of that is patently absurd.

People certainly thought different in those days, but not that different especially about that particlar subject. The sanctity of a husbands bond to his wife is universal. Some cultures like inuit might share sex with their wife, but either the woman or more often the husband always decides freely of their own accord who she sleeps with even under those unusual circumstances. I don't think you can find a culture anywhere in the world which advocates the forcible, mandatory sex of one mans wife with another man.

While it is true that peasants in many areas of Europe remained substantially or completely pagan until well into the Renaissance, and they had different attitudes toward sex (ala Beltane, et al) pagans respected the idea that a woman had ultimate say over who she slept with.

Pagan Viking law, for example, mandated the death penalty for anyone who raped a free-born woman (that is to say, anyone other than a captive or a slave: even a very poor peasant would be considered a free woman) while murder by comparison was only punishable by wereguild (fine)

Additionally, while the peasants may have been pagan, the barons and counts who ruled over them were generally Christian. IN that baronets own mind, he was committing a 'sin' by the first flower.

Finally, if they didn't think this was such a big deal, why was it cited in so many of the violent and occasionally successful peasant uprisings which took place throughout the Medieval and Renaissance periods? Why was it cited by enemies of the establishement such as during he Protestant Reformation?

They knew what this meant, it was first and foremost a system of humiliation and repression. I am not trying to sound hyperbolic, times were tough back then and thats the way it was, but that doesn't mean people were happy about it. It was very much a period of class war, the Wat Tylor rebellion, the Jacquerie, the Hussite Rebellion, the German Peasant wars of the early reformation, the Swiss wars against the Hapsburgs, the many wars of independence by the various German and Italian cities, and etc and etc., were all flareups of an ugly, deep rooted hatred between the classes. That is just a fact.

Jeanry Chandler

Hi Jeanry ;)

What can I say?

Quote:

With all due respect, this idea that the "first flower" laws were somehow less despicable or oppressive because of the attitudes toward sex within the historical context, and / or becuase it was some sort of male supremacy thing or done to protect the foreign baron from his subjects... all of that is patently absurd. People certainly thought different in those days, but not that different especially about that particlar subject. The sanctity of a husbands bond to his wife is universal.

I am in complete agreement with you here-- while other posters have done well to try to consider the worldviews of the people of the times, I think there are some "universals" that transcend culture. This would be one of them-- as far as I understand this was never a popular law. I would think it bore a much closer relationship to the custom of displaying dominance over one's defeated enemies by raping their women. Even in the ancient world where this was done by most peoples it was always considered a bad thing (at least when it happened to your side). In the same manner a Norman conqueror who enacted jus primae noctis was displaying his utter power over his new peasantry. Whatever else it was (immoral) it was humiliating for both the women involved and (most importantly for the conqueror) the men.

You go on to say:

Quote:

While it is true that peasants in many areas of Europe remained substantially or completely pagan until well into the Renaissance...

Again, as per the other thread,

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1030&start=22

I can only ask you what your sources are. As politely as I am able, in using this term, I think that the ascribing of any genuine paganism to your average pre-renaissance European (peasant or otherwise) is tosh. A gamut of fantasy/pseudo-historical novels may paint a pretty convincing picture of a glorious Old Religion that not only survived but dominated the beliefs of common people throughout the Middle Ages, but this picture does not accord with reality.

Certainly many superstitions lived on after the coming of Christianity, some inspite of the Church (luck charms, flirtation with magic and astrology, leaving milk out for the Faeries), some absorbed into the Church (holy wells, certain feast days, the building of churches on pagan sites, British Christians depositing treasures into lakes as an act of Christian worship in the same way that their ancestors had previously made offerings to the gods, and so on). This is different than paganism. Those who used astrology and magic did so knowing that they were moving outside the pale of orthodoxy-- it wasn't a matter of the worshipers of Lugh, the Dagda, Thor, or Aphrodite carrying on as normal while the nobility worshiped the "Christian God". King, duke, baron, knight, merchant, peasant-- all would have considered themselves Christian (or at least apostate).

Sorry to argue this again-- it stems from the "while it is true that... peasants remained substantially or completely pagan until well into the renaissance" statement. If you make a statement like that, taking the truth of near universal paganism among the masses well into the renaissance, (which most scholars would strongly dispute) you had better have some well respected sources.

David

When discussing heathen-worshippers in his History of the Nordic Peoples from 1555, the Swedish exiled arch-bishop Olaus Magnus wrote that:

Quote:

But although this supersticious worship now seem to be completely exterminated, through the cause of evil spirits remnants of that still live in hidden-away dwellings in wild Nordic countrysides, such as Norway and Värmland [a landscape in Sweden].

-3rd book, 1st chapter, page 131.

[my translation]

Joachim Nilsson wrote:

Quote:

When discussing heathen-worshippers in his History of the Nordic Peoples from 1555, the Swedish exiled arch-bishop Olaus Magnus wrote that: Quote: But although this supersticious worship now seem to be completely exterminated, through the cause of evil spirits remnants of that still live in hidden-away dwellings in wild Nordic countrysides, such as Norway and Värmland [a landscape in Sweden]. -3rd book, 1st chapter, page 131. [my translation]

LOL-- I'll look forward to reading that to my wife in the morning-- she's from just outside of Bergen (in Norway for those unfamiliar with that city).

I'll begin with a musing on a possible interpretation of the arch-bishop's comments and then take a step or two back to look at the alternative interpretation.

I find that quote interesting, but not conclusive as to the existence of "true" paganism. It wasn't that long ago that Norwegian shepherdesses were considered to be in danger from incubus-like faeries who would lure them to a watery grave in loca waterfalls. Young men were in danger of being seduced by "huldra" maids who would love them to death (quite literally). "Nisse" (like brownies) were believed to help around the farmstead-- some Norwegian families still put an obligatory bowl of porridge in the barn for the Nisse on Christmas Eve. The midsummer fires, now lit in celebration of St John, have pagan origins. Charms and protective spells would have been uttered-- again, all by people who considered themselves Christian. Doing or believing any of the above (with the exception of the bonfires, probably) could have occasioned someone being called "heathenish" by a cosmopolitan churchman. Even the giving of porridge to nisse-men could be seen to smack of sacrifices given to appease household gods.

Alternatively, it is possible that in some remote places of Norway pagan practices continued (many of the Sami or "Lapps" are still essentially animistic) well into the 1500's. But these are remote areas, not representing the majority of Norwegians at the time by any means.

My argument isn't that no pagan practices survived (in the other thread I noted that Lithuania and Prussia, for example retained their pagan beliefs far into the Middle Ages-- but they are the "exception that proves the rule"); my argument is that, broadly speaking, one cannot speak of Europeans, peasants or otherwise, as still being pagan in the Middle Ages. By 1000 most of Europe (from the British Isles to Constantinope) would have been Christian. In 1016 King Olav made Norway a Christian country (although this would have taken some time to become a reality in the lives of the people)-- and I believe Sweden was already Christian at the time? Apart from the aforementioned two countries (meaning Prussia and Lithuania), and the Slavs in the far east, Europe was united in its faith.

Thanks for that quote though-- I will have fun with it tomorrow :)

Cheers,

David

Hi Jeanry,

Thanks for your response-- I look forward to hearing from you soon. Just to be square, I didn't think you necessarily pulled things from the air... the statements did concern me insofar as they seemed to echo (no doubt coincidentally) ideas fielded by all too many sensationalist books these days.

My feelings in this are not so much based in any sense of pride in my ancestors' beliefs-- all of them were pagan and at some point they all became (nominally, at least) Christian. If the "conversion" happened in 450 AD or 1400 AD, that's that. Any strength of feeling comes from my reaction to postmodernity's proclivity to revise history to sate a hunger for magic and mystery at the expense of truth. One needs only look at what passes for the "History" section of most bookstores these days to see what I mean. Now, I realise that is not where you are coming from necessarily-- this is just my general concern. History has always had (and always will have) a degree of bias, but the truth is generally less hidden than many seem to think, these days. I'll leave off there for now... probably most don't tune in to this forum to ponder the merits and demerits of postmodern thought :)

Take Care,

David

Hey Joachim,

I suppose this doesn't (in the strictest sense) have much to do with commoners and swords except that some of the people we are talking about were commoners, quite a few of whom probably had swords :lol:

You wrote:

Quote:

Actually the Swedes were the most tenacious and stubborn on the Nordic populations in their resistance against Christianity. It wasn't until 1164 that we had an arch-bishop presiding in Uppsala, the old high seat of Odin and Frej. This date is somewhat tentative though, since Olaus Magnus claims that: Quote: But since the two radiant lights, the esteemed saints king Erik of Sweden and arch-bishop Henrik of Uppsala around the year of mercy 1155 through the sermon of the word of God and -when their peace-offerings were rejected- through their victorious arms subjugated Finland to the Christian faith and the kindom of Sweden, built churches and appointed priests, the people were transformed and began to above all others trust in all manners of virtues, in particular generousity and hospitality, which they in the most benevolent ways praticed towards arriving strangers. In relations among themselves they are friendly, meek and late to anger; but if one teases them for a long time, their revenge will become so much worse, the longer it has been postponed. -4th book, 18th chapter, page 202.

Thanks for that-- my knowledge is a bit more limited on the Swedish front.

Quote:

They certainly didn't waste no time in making sure that their neighbors became christians though. :p

The Vikings did all things with great enthusiasm :p

Quote:

I've seen similar satements (that the worship of our old Norse gods) continued in far off country-sides well into the 1500's. Although, if I remember correctly, this information was not quoting any historical sources per say, and was delivered via a site that's maintained for the benefit of present-day worshipers of our old religion. :)

Yes... well... I really want to comment on that, but perhaps we don't need to walk through any mine fields today. :)

David

All this talk about nobles and first night privieges! Hey, Ive seen "The War Lord" too. And truthfully, if you had to choose, who wouldn't pick Chuck Heston over Jimmy Farentino? Back to peasants and swords, who do you think gleaned the gleanings on battlefields after the armies fought on their fields? Just a thought...

Jeanry nothing in your posts is evidecerary of peasants not being Christian in spite of how they felt about the church or continuing pagan practices. I am also surprised that you left out the canonization of pagan deities. The two major flaws in your argument are that Christianity and paganism are incompatible( whether they are or not is of course a dogmatic argument but the relevant fact is that many practice both while considering themselves Christians, as I believe, did the majority of both European peasants and nobility). By this reasoning all Catholics might be called pagan. Secondly you ignore the active participation of the peasantry in these witch hunts. Incidently I agree that Constantine and the Council of Nicea were cataclysmic to christian thought but your characterization of Egil and Egil's saga strike me as fictitious(though it has been quite a few years since I read it).

Back to commoners and swords.


The essential thing when it comes to commoners and swords is WHERE in Europe you are.

In Scandinavia the pesantry where free, an expected to do military scervice. Thus, the more weapons and armour they had, the better.
In eastern europe, Serfdom was the norm. In such regions, weapons would naturaly be banned.
in western europe, the peasntry enjoyed a higher degree of freedom, so they would probably be allowed to own simple weapons. If they could aford or want to do so is another question.

Battlefield looting would probably not be that common, since the number of actual large battles was quite low. In either case, the victorious army would most likely pillage the field themselves.

yours
Elling

Dear Jeanry,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You have raised many salient points-- much of what you have written is simple fact and I will not disagree with you there. Your interpretation of those facts is another thing :) But then, perhaps you expected I would take an opposing view with some of it.

Firstly you write:

Quote:

Michelet also pointed out the interesting etymological facts that the words 'heathen' and 'pagan' both originally meant peasant.. I did not accept his theory initially, I actually found it rather shocking, but I kept it under consideration.

Again, the word "pagan" may have a different etymology (see other thread), but that is neither here nor there. Assuming that the usage does reflect the prevalence of Pre-Christian belief amongst countrymen, one has to ask "when did this term come into usage"? The term came into usage in the 4th century at the latest (that's as far back as I could trace it anyway). This means that in "300 something" A.D. Christianity was, in some regions, found primarily in urban centres. This is not controversial-- the first Christian missionaries made it their practice to go to the cities (think of St. Paul in the book of Acts) rather than the countryside. The reason for this was simple-- a church planted in a population centre would me much more effective in spreading the gospel throughout a region than one missionary. As Christianity spread it was normally the cities that would be effected first.

The key is the time in which the word "pagani" was first used-- to draw conclusions from the 4th c usage (that is the etymology) and try make mean the same thing seven centuries later is unworkable. To be clear-- if ancient Christians used the term "pagani" for non-christians because countrymen of the 4th century were often non-Christian that tells us something about the country folk of the 4th century, not the 12th.

Quote:

It was from military history at any rate that the more staggering evidence of the seemingly endless, vicious class -war which had taken place in Europe came to light. I was fascinated to note that some of the most effective military powers in Europe were republics and confederations run by commoners, and that they often rivaled and frequently defeated the greatest monarchies of Europe.... etc

I do not disagree with you here-- many of the wars and much of the unrest in medieval Europe were a result of the tension between the aristocracy and the common man, (and the church often sided with the aristocracy). This is unfortunate but not controversial. I disagree wholeheartedly with your extrapolation that, because of the above, it is likely that the aristocracy was, therefore, Christian while the commoner was pagan. Not only is this arguing from a vast and "roaring" silence, but it flies in the face of all annals of the time-- both ecclesiastical and secular. More on that in a moment.

Quote:

1) The conversion of the people often took place in a top-down manner which started with the aristocracy and gradually filtered down to the populace.

Yes and no. Yes, the "appropriate" way to evangelise by the 5th century at least was to go to the king and ask for his permission to preach the gospel and form communities of faith. Sometimes the king converted himself, sometimes he didn't. Either way, while the "conversion" of the populace was by no means immediate, it tended to be complete within a hundred years wherever you look. Ireland is a case in point-- Patrick who may fall under your category of "wandering prophet" asked and received permission from the High King. Although the King himself did not convert, the population quickly responded.

The Irish church followed Patrick's example in beginning with kings but ministering to the poor. St. Aidan is an example of this. Money he received went to the freeing of slaves. He lived humbly and sparingly-- he walked rather than rode even when given a horse by the king (which he gave to a beggar if I recall correctly) so that he could speak with the common people. He won them over quickly.

The early monasteries were the spearhead of almost all Christian work throughout Europe. These communities were both courageous and kind. They revolutionised agriculture amongst the pagan tribes and introduced advanced (at the time) medical care to the regions in which they worked-- they were also centres for education. I say this because often one is given the idea that the monasteries were places of "escape". Certainly some were, and in later times these institutions became as liable to corruption as any other (of which, more anon).

If you look at the way they spread, you will note that they reached noble and commoner alike. Charlemagne and Olaf provide negative examples of how some of the newly Christian kings spread the faith, but over all, Christianity became the defining characteristic of Europe's population however it was spread.

Quote:

In fact In egil's saga, for example the writer clearly associates the new Monarchy which was eroding the old federated libertarian tribalism of the traditional Norse society, with Christianity. Egil himself is considered an anti-Monarch and an anti-Christian.

Yes, but Egil was a 10th century character-- no one is suggesting that the Vikings were majoritively Christian at this time.

Quote:

2) The common people were alienated from the church, and the church had little interest in them for a long time. And 3) The commoners generally considered the Church their class enemies

The church went through a number of periods of moral decline and reformation. Generally the Christians who took the gospel to the pagan hinterlands were devout-- one had to be to consider such a task. The churches they founded developed local clergy who carried on the task and transformed their societies. Rome was going through some terrible times, however, and was sinking into a state of decadence. This disease of the soul spread through out now Christian Europe affecting many (but not all) countries.

By this time, the second and third sons (and so on) of noble families were sent to the Church to preserve the inheritance of the firstborn son. This meant that many entered the priesthood with less than ideal motivations. Many (but not all) priests were aristocrats. Power-mongers in the priesthood of a church that is in moral decline makes for very bad times. It was in the interest of these men to safe-guard the privileges of the aristocracy for a number of reasons:

1. Most of them were nobles themselves.
2. Many had attained their positions (bishops and even popes) through "simony" which is essentially the buying of position.
3. The feudal system was understood to be the natural way for any society to be governed-- the alternative was anarchy.
4. A safe and wealthy aristocracy meant safety and wealth for these clerics.

It is important to note that "the Church" itself was not all bad-- but the cardinals, bishops, even the popes were at many times considered the enemies of Christ by commoners and clergy alike.

Chaucer in his "Canterbury Tales" critiques the church in the form of the Pardoner who sells remission of sins and the Friar who asks for silver from penitents, seduces women, and loves his drink. If you've read this you'll remember his words are scathing. Yet, he speaks of the Parson and the Prioress as godly people representative of those through whom "Cristes gospel truly wolde be preched". This is the understanding of the commoner-- something was very wrong with the Church, but by God's grace there were still true men and women of faith.

It is interesting to note that one never hears of the people rebuilding the altars of the old gods in rebellion against the church-- it wasn't Christianity they rebelled against, it was the tyranny of Rome. A number of men rose up within the Church who sought to reform it. They frequently attacked it on some points of theology and always on the point of greed. It was these men (largely priests or monks-- sometimes Bishops and Abbots) who won the favour of the majority (Luther is a later example of this). The nobility were comfortable with the bishops-- the peasants loved the Franciscans who cared for them... and so on.

At other times the commoners (and even nobles) would embrace wholesale heresy such as that of the Cathars and Albigensians. But even here it was a version (albeit a twisted one) of Christianity not of the old pagan faiths of Europe. The Cathari owed their beliefs as much to the persian mystic Mani as they did to the apostles-- perhaps more. Catharism had nothing to do with Gallic or Frankish paganism.

You write:

Quote:

As I mentioned before, the chief opponents of peasants seeking to better their lot were often the Bishops or local Abbots (who incidentally, shared the same right of 'first flower' as other landlords) I cite one example, from the German Peasant uprising which took place at the time of the very early protestant reformation (and later condemned by Luther). Here is a list of participants of the Swabian League which was the principle enemy of that uprising, as quoted from the "Urkunden zur Geschichte des Schwasbichen Bundes" aka 'Documents of the Swabian League'):

All of these peasants were Christian! They had been swept up in Luther's call to freedom-- his Christian message had inspired them to action (he never called them to "strike the Christians down for Wotan"). It is true that they misunderstood him and that he became terrified by the anarchy that followed their revolt. In some ways their destruction of churches, monasteries and abbeys could be seen as a natural enough interpretation of his cry against wealthy churches... nonetheless... they misunderstood.

Why did these peasants who saw the Institutional Church as corrupt so often embrace orders such as the Franciscans, reformers such as Wycliffe, Huss and Luther, or heretics such as the Cathari in their rebellion against the Bishops etc? Simply, because there was no alternative for them-- they believed in Christ, but not the "false shepherds" who "fed on the flock"-- moreover the old religion was long dead-- it wasn't a living option.

As for the witch trials-- they were far too late to suggest any likelihood of old-style paganism. There is no evidence of a connection between these "witches" and pagans. Witches were tried as worshippers of the devil, not Odin or Belenos (the trials' transcripts leave no doubt that it is the devil of the Bible that is being referred to). Again, while it is possible that a few may have tampered with the worship of Satan, most would have been genuine Christians destroyed in an epidemic of superstitious paranoia. (It is important to note that, whatever "witch" signifies today within Wiccan circles, it signified devil-worshipper in the Middle Ages).

It is also important to note that the word "pagan" was (and still is) used to refer to decadence. While I am not familiar with the discussion of public baths I am quite sure they would have been (if unisex) considered inappropriate-- I highly doubt that they were believed by the church to be genuinely "pagan". I would have to see the quote before I could be convinced otherwise.

Midwives are represented in every culture and religion-- pagan, Jewish, and Christian-- this doesn't signify anything.

I think I have covered the main points. Briefly, I agree that there was often tension between the church and the people (although we haven't got into it here the nobility had as much problems with the church as the commoners-- it comes down to money and power). This tension has nothing to do with paganism-- it has to do with human failings.

I appreciate how you may have come to see this as a hint of pagan survival-- but there is no evidence. More than this, the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. When this is the case, an argument from silence won't do.

I aplogise for the length of the post, but it is a fairly wide-ranging topic.

Cheers,

David

Jeanry, I was not offended and I appreciate the fact that you're going out on a limb, but irrespective of Egil's religious beliefs I can recall nothing to suggest its presence among his motives (which, if that was your intent as I read it, is sufficiently discrepant to be considered an invention irrespective of whether or not you intended to deceive).

I suspect we see the world very differently, and we will simply have to agree to disagree on our interpretation of the facts, a lot of this stuff (how monastaries are perecieved, for example, or whether Christian "saints" were benign) is subjective , "is the glass half full or half empty" kind of thing. You see the common people as being 100% Christian with a few remnant heathanish tendancies, I see it basically the other way around.

One key difference which I think may be throwing you off is in how you percieve pagan religion, by this I mean northern and western european pre-christian religious beliefs, as being practiced. You mention that nobody was worshiping diana or building temples to zeus. I don't think that this is the main way that the old religion was practiced however. I don't think it was as centralized, that there was regular preaching going on, that people were looking up to gods all the time. There were sacred groves and such before the Romans, but I don't think these were as key or necessary as Churches were to the Chrisitian religion (or many other middle eastern religions) There were some popular gods which were reveered all over, Epona, say, or Thor, but pagan religious practice as I have come to understand it was much more about the house spirit, the grove spirit, the spring or well spirit. About the seasons, the harvest and the planting. About healing and managing livestock, gaining fertility for cows or rye fields... about showing respect to the ancestors, being wary of the little people, and the strange places in the forest.

I agree, there were no Cathedrals to Wotan in the 14th century. The fact that you seem to be looking for something like this to me illustrates the point of precisely how you could miss all the evidence of how the old religion stuck around for so long.

I would also say that, as someone who has lived in subcultures most of his life, it is perhaps easier for me to see how subcultures can and do thrive within the greater culture, with their own strongly held beliefs, values and moral principles which are completely different, even opposite.

JR

Jeanry wrote:

Quote:

One key difference which I think may be throwing you off is in how you percieve pagan religion, by this I mean northern and western european pre-christian religious beliefs, as being practiced. You mention that nobody was worshiping diana or building temples to zeus. I don't think that this is the main way that the old religion was practiced however. I don't think it was as centralized, that there was regular preaching going on, that people were looking up to gods all the time. There were sacred groves and such before the Romans, but I don't think these were as key or necessary as Churches were to the Chrisitian religion (or many other middle eastern religions) There were some popular gods which were reveered all over, Epona, say, or Thor, but pagan religious practice as I have come to understand it was much more about the house spirit, the grove spirit, the spring or well spirit. About the seasons, the harvest and the planting. About healing and managing livestock, gaining fertility for cows or rye fields... about showing respect to the ancestors, being wary of the little people, and the strange places in the forest. I agree, there were no Cathedrals to Wotan in the 14th century. The fact that you seem to be looking for something like this to me illustrates the point of precisely how you could miss all the evidence of how the old religion stuck around for so long. I would also say that, as someone who has lived in subcultures most of his life, it is perhaps easier for me to see how subcultures can and do thrive within the greater culture, with their own strongly held beliefs, values and moral principles which are completely different, even opposite.

Hi again Jeanry,

I suppose we may just have to disagree on this one. I think the facts are explained in their most obvious light (i.e. in the words of the contemporary commentators of the time) and that hidden explanations are unnecessary in this instance.

I don't remember arguing that "cathedrals" to Wotan would have been present if the old religions were a living reality to the populace as such...

I am possibly more aware of the beliefs of the "Celtic" and Germanic peoples than you might gather from the above. I am aware of the decentralised nature of the latter vs the former for example (although much of the content of both has been lost to us aside from the basic mythos that have been preserved).

Also, I like to think I am familiar with the subtleties of worldview that are reflected in various cultures-- I have spent a number of years in other cultures, particularly in Europe and Central Asia. I'm not bragging (I hope), I just don't want you to think I am arguing from a monocultural position.

European paganism was animistic to a degree, as you say (as seen in their belief in localised spirits... wells, trees, mountains and groves etc) but it was also polytheistic. The ancient Irish had a pantheon which included the Tuatha de Danaan and Fomhoire (possibly reflecting the Aesir and Vanir, although the Fomhoire would seem to have been darker than the Vanir). It is hard to divorce the central deities from genuine ancient paganism. Cuchullain would swear "by the gods my people swear by". Although it was fashionable some time ago to doubt the reliability of Caesar's descriptions of Gallic human sacrifice, few now doubt that this was a very real part of those ancient religions (cf. Lindow man's form of death and the "bog bodies in Denmark). Of course there are positives as well... the Brehon laws etc.

What I am getting at is, the gods were an irreducible part of our ancestors paganism. As an 2nd century Irishman you needed to know who the gods were, what territories they held sway over, the appropriate rituals to appease them (and to seal their blessing on the cycles of life and death). This is very different to the hold-overs that survived into the new Christian world. One can be a Christian and believe in elves and trolls, for instance... most people likely did up until a couple of hundred years ago. One cannot be a Christian while worshiping other gods. Likewise, one cannot believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, the rightful king of heaven and earth and still be a real (in the historical sense) pagan.

The attitudes of the medieval European Christians certainly were still tangled up with pagan attitudes-- their proclivity for blood feud, trial by fire, cattle raiding and so on was only partly diminished...

Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts... its good to stretch the mind, no? :)

Yours,

David

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.