Or so he says…Exactly who was Pliny the Elder and how did he come to observe these rites? Pliny the Elder was born Gaius Plinus Secundus in AD 23 or 24 in Novum Comum in Gallia Cisalpina or what is now Como, Italy. He served in the army in Germany under Pomponius. He worked as a legal advocate during the reign of Nero. He served as procurator (an administrative official with legal and fiscal powers) in Gaul, Africa and Spain. He also served on the Imperial Council for both Vespasian and Titus and commanded the fleet at Misenum.
        Along with this he was, to say the least, a very prolific author. His books included volumes on military tactics, biographies, the history of the German wars (20 books), volumes on grammar, rhetoric, contemporary history (31 books) and his most famous, the Natural History. It is in this book that we find the observation concerning Mistletoe. The Natural History (published in 77ce), his only surviving work, is said by some to have been based on a lost work by Quintus Sextius Nigerit. In any case it comprises 37 books, some 35,000 "facts", citing 4,000 authors. In this book he planned to "set forth in detail all the contents of the world."
        And set forth he did, of the fantastic, the marvelous and the downright fanciful…Such as dog-headed people who communicated by barking. Or people with no heads at all, but with eyes in their shoulders. Or bird-catching, high-flying snakes. And of the African Basilisk, which kills bushes on contact, burst rocks with its breath and is so venomous that when one was killed by a man on horseback "the infection rising through the spear killed not only the rider but also the horse." Now Pliny was no simpleton and I'm quite sure that he wrote what he thought to be true, he was after all relying on 4,000 authors. And we all know how everything written is truth…right?
        Since he relied on other people's information for most of his "facts" it is likely that this is also the case with his observation of Druidic rites…None of us would believe a tale about barking dog-headed people, and however much we might sorrow for some poor unfortunate babe who was born with no head and oddly placed eyes, we would never believe it of a whole population…But mention the word "druid" and we will take in every morsel without question, especially if the "fact" has been repeated over and over and over again.
        How then do we approach his statement about Druids gathering of Mistletoe? It may or may not be an accurate statement about one tribe's practices…And this is the crux of the matter. This alleged practice has been said to be "what Druids do." We don't know where or when this tribe lived, or if they had included elements from another culture. Integrating aspects of other cultures is something we see in social customs throughout the Celtic and Germanic tribes, why not in religious custom? We cannot verify where the information comes from, under what circumstances it was obtained, or how much the author's personal views colored that he saw or thinks he saw, if indeed he saw anything at all. As to the ritual itself, what druids did varied extensively (see the article The Mystery of the Druids by Michael Ragan, Earrach 2000 issue), it may be that we have turned a healer's ceremony into a religion.
        And least we forget, Pliny and his cohorts were Romans, who for all intents and purposes were building an empire and to do this they subjugated most of the Celtic tribes. What better way to do this than by destroying their religion. Conquerors write history to their own advantage. We would not believe what early white settlers said of the Native Americans they encountered any more than we would believe what the nazis said of the Jews. But again, if it concerns Druids we are quick to absolve the conquerors of all war crimes and accept their statements as factual.
        That being said and done we can neither corroborate or refute Pliny's statement. My purpose here is to point out that we know too little about this statement and the people it concerned to say how much of it is truth and how much of it fancy. As such we need to be cautious in saying "this is how it was" and building religious traditions around such "facts."