 |
 |
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
|
 ere mention of the word “Druid” and, for the average individual, the popular romantic notion of white-robed priest cutting mistletoe with a golden sickle in preparation for blood sacrifice of two white bulls will likely spring to mind. They are also usually seen them as sorcerers and magicians making human and animal sacrifice and bitter opponents of Christianity. Such views are the result of vast amounts of literature written over the last 2,000 years that ranges from semi-factual to farcical.
The enigmatic Druids are the most written about single subject of the Celtic world. They have fascinated countless authors from the classical literary period to the Common Era. Most quoted is Pliny and, as it turns out, he was probably as inaccurate as most writers since. The facts are that few writers from classical time, through the Victorian to the modern, really understand the subject. Various reasons for inaccuracy are apparent. Such things as religious and cultural bias have always figured heavily. So too has the lack of understanding of the culture of which the Druids were an integral part has colored many a pen. However inaccurate many authors have been, over the past two thousand years, if we carefully screen our many sources, we may find a reasonably sound answer to our question.  There are many sources that we can investigate to give us some understanding of the role of the Druid. First there are the writings of the classical authors such as the Syrian Poseidonios (c. 135-50 BC), Gaius Julius Caesar (c. 100 – 44 BC), Diodorus Siculus (c. 60 – 21 BC), Strabo (c. 64 BC – 24 AD) and Pliny (c. 24-79 AD), among others. Secondly we have the surviving fragments of the oral tradition in Celtic vernacular transcribed by medieval Christian scribes. Next, we have the highly speculative works of the 17th and 18th century scholars whose questionable theories have developed into folklore of its own. Finally, we have the modern authors who continue to examine the Druid and Druidism with sometimes curious and startlingly divergent viewpoints. Last, but not least is the most valuable source of all, the language of the Druids themselves. While certain Celtic scholars do not agree with a pre-Christian literary tradition among the Celts and thus the Druids, there seems to be general agreement on what the Druids of Europe did. The classical writers suffered the same affliction of writers of all times. Their writings reflected whatever prejudice, pro or con, held by the writer. To a Stoic, the idea of a person of wisdom leading primitive people held great appeal. Thus, the Druids, as men of learning were likely to be given credit for greater leadership than they exercised. In practicality, there are two groupings of classical texts. They were Posidonian and Alexandrian traditions of thought which reflected contrasting views of the Celts. The Posidonian tradition is named after Posidonius, a Syrian Greek philosopher (135-59 BC), who wrote critically of the Celts that habituated the area to the northwest of Greece. He saw them unsympathetically as barbaric and a less developed and primitive culture. The second tradition, the Alexandrian is named after the later writers of the Alexandrian scholastic traditions. They tended to see the Celts in a more sympathetic, idealized view as noble savages. It is they who speak of the mythical Hyperboreans and later seemed to confuse mythical Hyperborean and living Celt. It was also the Classical scholars, products of Greek and Roman society, that did not recognize women as members of society outside of the bounds of marriage and child-bearing. Regardless of the accuracy of observation from either school, later writers have quite naturally given precedence to those earlier writers who professed direct contact with the Celts and their Druid, such as Posidonius, Caeser and Tacitus. Modern writers speak grandly of the Celtic culture and hap-hazardly quote from classical, romantic and modern literary sources to make a particular point. In so doing, they are doing their readers a great disservice. They seldom stop to consider author bias or geographical location or time period. Yes, the Celtic culture was a significant influence on Europe and it’s history. It was a major contributor to modern European culture. However, one significant fact is overlooked. A fact that must be considered if we are going to find the truth to any part of the Celts. By the dawn of the historical period, the language had developed into five distinct branches. They were the Lepontic, the Hispano-Celts (Celt-Iberians), the Gaullic, the Brythonic and the Goidelic (Irish). The Celtic dominated areas stretched from the Danube river basin to the British Isles and from the Mediterranean to the borders of Scandinavia. Each, quite naturally had it’s own distinct language dialect along with other significant differences that resulted from their contact with other cultures. Recent research indicates that the distinct dialectal variations developed prior to 1,000 BC. This indicates a separation and loss of continuous contact between the 5 branches long before even the classical writers picked up their pens. The point is that the various branches of the Celts would have had many differences in their cultural styles over the centuries. So to compare the continental Celts of Pliny with the Irish Celts of Joyce is like comparing apples and oranges. Shape and size may be similar, but the flavors are far different. Thus it is totally inaccurate to use a clue from a classical source, for example, to make a point about the Irish Celts – or vice versa. The first thing a person should realize is that to understand one particular role in any society, you need to understand the whole of that society. You must understand the structure, the elements and how they fit and function together. In the case of the Druid, you must understand the individual’s rights and responsibilities, as well as his (or her) religious and political roles. A great body of literature pertaining to the Celts and Druids stands apart. First of all, it is Irish. Secondly, it is literature of and about Ireland itself, to the exclusion of other peoples. Unlike classical sources who saw the land of the Celts as to the ‘northwest’ or ‘north,’ we have a clearly defined graphical area, the Island of Eire, and we have a very specifically identified culture, the Irish. A basic problem with any available source of material, including Celtic, is that no Druid ever committed to writing in plain language information that can be readily understood by the modern scholar. Thus what we do have is written by outsiders. Also, much of the Celtic vernacular works reflect the prejudices of Christian scribes. Therefor no source can be accepted carte blanche. It must be carefully analyzed piece by piece in consideration of the larger picture of the culture and times. In order to define a specific term in any language, that term must be examined in context of how it is applied. A quick look into the nearest dictionary, one will read that the Druid was one of the priestly class of the Celts who was considered a magician and sorcerer. A little bit of more serious research will find a blinding array of written works describing the Druid as everything from Celtic priest, sorcerer, augerer to a Witch. When all is said and done, we are left with a rather vague idea of what a Druid might have been. We certainly can’t be sure. So, just what or who were the Druids? For that matter, just whose Druids are we talking about? In this case, we confine ourselves to the Irish Druids and the answer to who they were is well demonstrated in the Irish literature. In studying the vernacular texts, it becomes readily apparent that the Druids were the almost exclusive source of learning. In story after story, tale after tale, the Irish Druid instructed the youth, especially the sons and daughters of the privileged. They performed incantations to protect armies, they baptized the newborn. They are identified as healers, lawgivers, historians, poets diviners, and prophets. They performed various magical feats including making incantations. They studied “the clouds and stars” and forecast the future. They divined using other methods too including the “divining wheel,’ and trance-work . They gave the benedictions at the assemblies. It is quite obvious that there was a ‘priestly’ function or functions performed by our Druids. However, it is equally clear that they seemed to encompass the entire professional spectrum of their society. We are dealing with a very broad term that needs further definition. The confusion concerning just who and what the Druids were is generally reflected in the disagreement about the very term. The average Irish/English dictionary gives the definitions of sorcerer, magician and philosopher. Dineen1 gives us “a pagan priest, an augur, a dealer in natural magic: a magician (astrologer, etc.)…a poet, a man of knowledge… Quin2 gives us magician, wizard and diviner. Neither of these scholars gives us a clear view of the meaning of the word. They merely indicate what earlier scholars wrote concerning their activities. More lucidly, the modern Professor O hOgain3 identifies the Druids as being “…of the learned class or priestly professions…” He goes on to state that ”The word ‘Druid’ is probably derived from (the) Celtic…which would have meant ‘very knowledgeable’.” While the term is perhaps vague in origin and exact translation, the activities of those called Druid are more easily defined. It is apparent that the Druids were an integral part of society. Though frequently referred to as diviners and magicians, they also served as healers, historians, astrologers and legal experts (Brehons), in addition to religious leaders. The Irish texts indicate that the Irish society had a considerable religious sense, but no clearly defined religious system. They had many Gods, but none was considered supreme, such as Zeus and Jupiter of the Greeks and Romans. There is no great evidence of prayer and no identified form of worship. No Druidic temples existed, yet Cormac4 indicates there were altars dedicated to the Gods, apparently in the open air. Thus while our references identify the religion of the pagan Irish as “Druidism (Druideacht),” further definition is lacking. Classical writers wrote primarily of the Gaulish Druids, their doctrines and forms of worship. Early assumption has been that what was written of Gaul also applied to Britain and Ireland. This however is not so. The Irish Celts had separated from the European Celts long before the classical writers picked up their pens. Separated by time and distance, the religious system would have diverged, just as had the language. Thus the oft-quoted Caesar and his myopic view of the Gaulic Celts is even more inaccurate when used to define the Irish. One vital body of reference often overlooked by modern scholars when writing of the Irish is the Brehon Law. While the various law tracts do not identify the Druids, their rights, privileges and responsibilities, they do deal with the various functions to which the Druids are associated in the other literature. Clearly defined are the roles of the professional healer, historian, lawgiver, etc. With the exception of divination and baptism, we find the various professional activities attributed to the Druid clearly identified and the rules and regulations applicable to that profession. The Brehon Law even addresses the requirement for the Ard Fíle (advisor to the Ruler) to make benediction before the Ruler can lawfully speak to the public. To comment specifically on the religious role, i.e. priesthood, I need simply to remind the reader that it has only been in the Common Era that science and religion became separated. Remember also that the early Greek and Roman writers wrote from their own perspective. Since their societies had men and women whose sole duties were religious, they assumed that the Celts did as well. But to the ancient Celts, including the Irish, there was but one body of knowledge. The religion was part of every day life and part of every activity. All professionals were educated in their religion as a part of their “scientific” knowledge. In looking back, it appears that the confusion about the term Druid (at least as applied to the Irish) rests only in the minds of certain writers. The etymologists, such as Dineen, Quin and O’hOgain were absolutely right. The Druid was indeed teacher, lawgiver, historian, healer, diviner, priest etc. We only need to consider the context of the word in a more general term such as wise one. The Druid of the Celts can be compared to the holders of Doctorates in modern society. They cover the gamut of professional and scientific endeavors such as healing, law, historian, and even religious leader. In neither case is there a separate class of society. Rather it is a broad term identifying a considerable education and professional excellence. The Druid was the intelligencia of his or her society, the professional, the learned. While the individual Druid could and sometimes did become elevated to King or Queen, the role generally was one of service to the greater community through professional service and an advisory role. When we peel away the misconceptions and misunderstandings of the past, we find the identity of the Druid very straightforward. The term Drui(dh) means one of wisdom and is synonymous with the Gaelic “Ollamh” or modern English “Doctor.” A person so identified could be either male or female and a member of a number of professions, including healer, lawyer, historian and smith. The so-called Drui(dh), or professional was better known under the Law as a Nemed or one of privilege. The Drui was not a priestly class per se. Their primary roles were those of their chosen profession. Thus they could perhaps be somewhat compared to modern lay ministers who ordinarily pursue a profession and serve as in the religious function on a part-time basis. In sum, the Drui was simply the professional of his or her society who performed a ritual function when and as required.
|
