#anti druidic rhetoric

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

"Too many modern people have been looking for something in druids and druidry which cannot be known. It has been so filled with speculation-become-certainty that far too many people speak of druidic beliefs, mores, and opinions as if they are obvious, plain, and commonplace rather than a palimpsest of such various accretions as environmentalism, Freemasonry, and ideas drawn from (largely discredited) Indo-European structuralist assumptions that may have little or no bearing on the ancient realities, insofar as these can be known at all."

Dr. Philip A. Bernhardt-House in The Well of Five Streams: Essays on Celtic Paganism by Erynn Rowan Laurie

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

Moving beyond the whole Druidic Orders are garbage thing.

Being a Druid was a profession. And we don’t know exactly what duties they performed. We know that they advised kings and were knowledgeable of the law, and knew a great deal about the religion- but we don’t know much beyond that. And I just - we don’t have to call ourself druids. It’s weird guys. It’s weird.

I’m not going to pretend to be the carry-over of an ancient profession where we don’t know exactly what they did and where I definitely don’t do the things that they did? Like I’m probably never gonna advise a king, and I’m sure as hell never gonna be a lawyer or a judge, and as much as I love helping people grow and research their faith and find what works for them and makes their soul sing, I’m not trying to be a preacher, I’m just very enthusiastic and an unrepentant extrovert with mom friend energy.

Words have meaning and we’ve removed “druid” so far from its original context thanks to the plethora of pseudo histories that it’s kind of lost meaning except when applied to these organizations. We’re not yet at a stage where we can reclaim and personally I don’t think we should.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

Re: modern druids (if you're comfortable discussing more) for the most part I very much agree w/ you on the topic of modern Druidry, especially being a Welsh recon where OBOD dominates. The discussion here seems mainly to be on modern druid orgs, which is fair, but what are on your thoughts on, for instance Lora O'Brien, who I consider fairly recon, who describes herself as modern Draoí? I don't think we need to do away w/ 'modern druid' as a label itself, the issue is more what ppl do with it.

I think if you’re going to call yourself a Druid then you have to be prepared for people to think that you’re a Druid in the way that most people use the term in association with Druidic orders. She does not, she literally calls herself a Druid on her website and then on her facebook page says she isn’t a Druid. You can’t have both. If you say you’re a Druid but you don’t want to be associated with these awful organizations - then maybe you should pick a different word.

I don’t read a lot from pagan authors, I’ve never actually read her or Daimler’s work- least of all because I’m poor and I’m not paying for an intro-course to a faith I’ve been practicing for 5 years, when I know I’ve done more research and have done more to change my theological approaches than most of the people who have formed a cult-like following around O’Brien and Daimler, and many of those who form that following also associate themselves with Druidic organizations.

We don’t have to use the word Druid. And when big name pagan authors with large followings call themselves druids while putting their actual thoughts behind a paywall and don’t openly distance themselves from these organizations I have a problem with it, because newcomers who, let’s be honest, probably aren’t going to pay to access O’Brien’s classes but who see that she’s a self described Druid will end up reading Krasskova because a Druidic organization recommended it to them and O’Brien is a druid and everyone says she’s great....... you see where I’m going with this right?

I don’t think that the greater pagan community does enough to think critically about where they’re getting their information to stop to question what O’Brien means when she calls herself a druid. I think that while Druidic organizations remain so strong and so accessible to people who have no prior experience with researching paganism that it’s irresponsible to reclaim the Druid label, because it will and does lead people to groups like the ADF and the OBOD.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 8: The Four Major Gaelic Festivals”

This is part 8 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut!

Welcome back! With Beltaine coming up and my preparations for the holiday starting I’m super excited to be tackling this topic. I am less excited by the fact that it means that I have to actually read Robin Herne’s writing, but excited to talk about the holidays nonetheless. 

Gonna be honest, pleasantly surprised that Herne acknowledges that there are only four major holidays and that they’re Gaelic in origin. However, this is about.... the only good thing in this “lesson”.... and it’s in the fucking title. 

Rather than looking at the historical record or doing literally any research beyond “x story from the lore takes place at this time of year” Herne just talks around the topic again. The topic of this “lesson” is supposedly the holidays, but Herne looks more at what stories take place at certain times of year as opposed to what might have actually been done during the festivals that comprised the holidays all while ignoring that the evidence suggests that the ancient Gaels saw Beltaine, Imbolc, Samhain, and Lughnasadh as seasons in which to separate the year as opposed to simply the name of the festival that marked the beginning of the season. I am genuinely starting to question whether Herne has actually ever so much as held a history book, let alone read one. 

Furthermore..... the neolithic structures Herne mentions were not built by the Celts, they were extant when the Celts arrived in Ireland and Scotland, so the fact that they align with the solstices doesn’t really matter? And I’ll keep repeating this until the day I die apparently, but IRELAND AND SCOTLAND HAVE DIFFERENT FOLKLORE- THERE WAS NO ONE PAN-CELTIC RELIGION AND ANYONE WHO POSITS OTHERWISE IS SELLING YOU BULLSHIT. Herne is selling you bullshit by trying to act like folklore about the sidhe is going to be the same regardless of location, everything Herne says about the sidhe in this “lesson” is Scottish folklore, not Irish. I also seriously question Herne’s assertion that “Some historians have questioned how old these particular legends are, but they remain widespread and have earned the approval of both deities when told in ritual,” as he gives us no details about these rituals or what indicated the approval of the deities in question- it reeks of confirmation bias and a lack of discernment. Henre is also trying to apply Gaulish, Brythonic, and Roman mythography and holidays to Gaelic holidays- which I really shouldn’t have to explain to you why that’s a problem. I reiterate, Rome never conquered Ireland, and Hadrian’s Wall exists for a reason, and not everything “Celtic” is Gaelic. 

This is a bad “lesson” and like most of the lessons, doesn’t actually really talk about what the title says it was. 

I recommend reading the articles found in the google drive folder linked here for more information on the four major festivals.

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 7: Values, Morals, and Ideals”

This is part 7 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut!

You can find Robine Herne’s “lesson” here. 

To start things off Herne has finally used the word “druid” in a way that I can disagree with. As we hopefully all know a druid was not a layperson in early Gaelic society, to be a druid was to be a member of a profession, and it was a profession we know very little about. Essentially all we know about druids is that they were educated on the law and the religion and there is some loric evidence that they also practiced magic. It is assumed that they would advise kings, but ultimately we simply don’t know what they did. At the very least I am extremely wary of referring to modern Gaelic polytheists as “druids” in the same way that I feel many other pagans are or should be hesitant to make use of the word “priest/priestess” - it was a profession and it denoted a member of a particular class. To call all modern Gaelic polytheists “druids” is as baffling as it is inaccurate - after all, druids were supposed to be education on the religion and the lore, something very clearly lacking in modern druidism.

But beyond my scruples with druidism, it’s odd to say the least that Herne focuses mostly on laws when there are surviving wisdom texts that discuss values, morals, and ideals and when the lore itself shows us examples of these ideals and values in action. I understand of course that knowing these things requires one to have both done research and actually read the lore, but when one is a founder of a “Druid college” these things really should be the bare minimum. Furthermore, Herne’s focus on trying to figure out which laws are Christian and which laws are pagan in origin, is in my opinion pointless. Regardless of when the laws were written they came from Irish culture and if they were Christian, they came from the perspective of the highly syncretic Gaelic Church. The focus on the supposed “religion” of the laws is really nothing more than an attempt to separate pagan and Christian Ireland while looking at texts from the transitional era. 

Herne focuses so much on the law that he almost seems to run out of things to say about them. He dedicates almost a whole paragraph to the question of whether or not a “modern druid” can be vegetarian- a question that is not even raised by the laws he’s looking at, and talks around the issues. This “lesson” is mostly just sound and fury, it signifies and means nothing. What Herne provides is an incomplete picture barely befitting an introductory lesson. What is lacks in substance is certainly intentional, Druidic orders tend to focus less on the ways in which the lore and the wisdom texts show us how we should conduct ourselves so that the abuses of power within among their leadership and the lack of substance in their teaching isn’t as obvious to their members. 

Links to the wisdom texts are provided below, and once it’s finished I’ll add a link to a post I’m working on about how to get more out of the lore and how to view it as a religious text or scripture rather than just as a collection of stories. 

The Testament of Cathair

Testament of Morann

The Instructions of King Cormac

Cormac's Glossary

O'Mulconry's Glossary

Dromma Cetta’s Collection

The Fitness of Names

Of the Qualifications of a Poet

The Colloquy of the Two Sages

The Psalter

The Boroma

The Convention of Taillte

That’s all for today! If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 6: The Structure of Early Gaelic Society”

This is part 6 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the end of the post, any reference to the Brehon laws is linked within the text and will not have a footnote!

Hey hey hey welcome back! It’s been a few months, and I’m refreshed and am once again ready to tear into druidic bullshit. Today we’re continuing our look at Robin Herne’s “lessons,” this particular lesson can be found here. 

From the very beginning of this “lesson” I’m sensing a problem with Herne’s writing that I’ve seen and spoken on before, which is the concept of a pan-Celtic religion. Herne’s lesson may focus on Ireland, but that’s only because he feels as though it’s “harder” to talk about Wales.... a nation with a very different history and a different religion than Ireland..... but they’re both Celtic so whatever right? For any newbies here, there was no Pan-Celtic religion. I mention this in Part 1 of this series.

From there it only gets worse really. For starters, the Romans never conquered Ireland, the nation whose history is supposed to be the focus of this lesson. Beyond that- the Romans used existing British oppida as the urban centers of the tribal system that was established under their rule, to claim that pre-Roman Britain was made up only of villages when archaeologists can’t accurately determine the populations of the oppida is ridiculous. What the Romans did was establish the first cities that were not located in the South East of England. Herne also has this weird focus on Ireland and Britain being “rural” as though most cultures weren’t largely rural- and honestly the focus on distancing these cultures from anything urban is a HUGE red flag if you know the history of paganism and Celtic Twilight, bad show all around. And of course Herne doesn’t cite any sources so for all I know he’s pulling this out of his ass. All in all it seems like Herne is falling to the classic pitfall of circle jerking to Rome, maybe if he could get off Rome’s dick for a few minutes we might actually learn something. 

I question whether Herne has ever actually read the Brehon laws, or if he understands that there were similarities between the laws of many medieval societies, even those that didn’t share a “Celtic” label. I genuinely have no idea what “change” he’s referring to that would be a gradual process considering the continental Celts and the Gaels were different cultures, and the laws in question existed at different times, and also the laws he references for the continental Celts were only “mentioned” by classical authors, who if you haven’t read my other rebuttals are notoriously unreliable narrators. 

I question the choice to say “Think of the cenn as rather like the head of a Mafia clan! “ and particularly to end it with an exclamation point. The cenn, is the head of the family, and thus the family’s legal representative in court. This was not a cultural practice unique to Ireland, similar practices are shown to exist throughout Europe during this time. And in no way is a patriarch (or occasionally a matriarch) who protects the family’s interests and revokes legal agreements made without their consent the same thing as a mafia boss. This isn’t a crime syndicate, it’s a judicial system that protects the different families within the tribe and in theory was meant to ensure that contractual decisions were made with the consent of the family. 

Beyond this to describe the social structure of early Ireland as a “caste system” is... stretching it- movement from one class to another was not uncommon, and more things factored into one’s status in Irish society than simply the situation of one’s birth. Beyond that, this system is more easily broken down into six groups than into two, and Herne would know that if he’d actually read the Brehon laws. Rather than just splitting society into “the blessed ones” and “ordinary people” the Brehon laws organize it into kings of various grades, professional classes, flaiths (a sort of official nobility), freemen possessing property, freemen who possess no or very little property, and the non-free classes. And joint ownership of property could qualify a selected joint-owner to become a noble, this is very much not the rigid system Herne would want you to believe it is. 

Herne’s discussion of the Lia Fail while simplified does hold up. In the lore we see the process described by Herne for choosing the high king of Ireland, it’s described clearly in The Destruction of Dá Derga’s Hostel. And I will admit, I’m with Herne up to a point in his discussion of the concept of lanamnas, there’s clearly a fair amount of research he needs to do into medieval history to truly understand the relationships he’s describing, but he’s not necessary wrong, so I’ll let it slide, these are meant to be introductory lessons after all. 

However. Herne makes some... interesting claims in regards to divinity. Herne makes the correct statement that “Each partner in lanamain must recognise that they have a duty to give certain things to the other person, but also a duty to allow that person to give back to them ~ there is no honour in emasculating someone, nor in allowing yourself to be rendered servile.” This is correct, we see this very same principle in the two sided nature of the virtue of hospitality, we’re called to be both good hosts and good guests. But then Herne goes onto say “This applies as much to the Gods as to other humans. Hosting a ritual for a god may be seen as fulfilling the coinmed, but there should also be expectation back of the deity. If your life is barren, then maybe you need a better head to guide you (either that, or you‘re not fulfilling your duties to them).” Ignoring the fact that Herne has all but called the gods parasites if they don't attend rituals we host for them voluntarily (something we should be doing anyway, and without the expectation that they’ll show up)- this argument rests on the assumption that we can understand the divine and how they interact with us enough to judge whether or not we need a "better head" to guide us, which I think anyone who’s actually had an encounter with the divine or felt their presence can tell you is bullshit. They’re divine for a reason, they’ve existed for thousands of years, we’re just a blip on their radar, it is not up to us to judge whether or not we need a “better head to guide us” or if we’re giving enough, the gods decide that. 

For everyone who had “baseless claims about the roles of historical druids” on their BINGO cards you may now cross that off. Herne falls into the typical pattern of repeating the “druids were the precursor the Catholic church” story fabricated by 16th century Germans for political clout. Don’t be like Herne, read a goddamn book, I have recommendations, feel free to dm me or shoot me an ask if you’d like them. 

And last but not least, I would like to remind everyone that the “every family/tribe has their own tartan that differentiates them” is a largely 19th century creation with scant pre-Victorian basis. 

That’s all for today! If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

Druids ain’t shit and here’s why.

Straight from the Pond- here’s a lesson from your friendly neighborhood historian.

It’s a long post so the history lesson is under the cut. 

Druidic “history” (or pseudohistory rather) actually begins with early renaissance politics. 

Basically Italy is dominating politics and religion by being able to call back to an ancient history that led directly into the formation of the centralized Catholic church. Surprising nobody who's familiar with European history- the German states want in on that action but they don't really have that direct line linking them to antiquity beyond their conquering by Rome- so, like any good 15th century academics, they create that link by just making shit up. 

So they look back at ancient roman writings, and see mention of druids, and also realize that they actually don't know fuck all about them, there's no records of them beyond a few classical authors- and for the record, classical authors are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable, there are entire graduate level seminars dedicated to teaching people how to read through ancient Roman propaganda, almost every druid I have ever met has taken classical authors at face value, anyway I digress, they just start making up a history of the druids, German lands used to be populated by Celts, and they create these mystical druids who serve as the direct precursor to The Church in these areas, like they forge documents and everything so when Italy goes "oh yeah since when?" they have something to hold up as a "gotcha" - they fashion statues and hide them in crypts as further evidence. It’s wild. 

So, France sees that the German states are becoming more politically popular within the HRE (Holy Roman Empire) because of these druid stories, and so they go "Hey Celts used to live in France too... we should have druids"- and they create druid stories. Scotland at the time is very close with France politically and they go "Hey us too, we're still Celts,” and then it spreads to Wales, and then England. Ireland is mostly staying out of druid nonsense- like in this period of the OG pseudohistories Ireland is like "this is disgusting we don't want druids" so like all the writings in Ireland in this period on druids are like "yeah the Church HATES druids"

Things quiet down for a little bit, because the stories are established, the cards have been played, whatever, but then Neo-Classicism and the Enlightenment- and now suddenly it's cool to have ancient history again - but like... Britain has "we got conquered by Rome" or "hey a few centuries ago people were saying we had druids?”; so naturally the more nationalistic go with druids....which is how we get, Iolo Morganweg.  Iolo's real name is Edward Williams but he insisted on going by his "bardic name"- bc druids.  Williams was a Welsh antiquarian- who is in some scholastic circles considered the father of “modern” druidry.  Williams literally named his son Taliesin after the bardic poet behind the Poems of Taliesin which is frequently in association with the Mabinogi in Brythonic texts. To pull from the wiki on this asshole: 

[he made] claims that ancient Druidic tradition had survived the Roman conquest, the conversion of the populace to Christianity, the persecution of bards under King Edward I, and other adversities. His forgeries develop an elaborate mystical philosophy, which he claimed as a direct continuation of ancient Druidic practice. Williams's reportedly heavy use of laudanum may have been a contributing factor

Yeah.... just... yeah. So not only did he forge like hella documents, which today in the 21st century, over 100 years after he was revealed as a fraud, are still more popular than the originals- but he also is the reason that ogham is like that. Williams created a ‘bardic alphabet’ based on combining Scandinavian runes and extant ogham - we are still wading through his bullshit trying to fix ogham. 

And this brings us to the Celtic Twilight...... 

To quote @liminalblessings​, “And a bunch of noodle fuckers decide "hey, we didn't bastardize the Irish enough for the last however long.... We should do more of that."” But for those of you not familiar with the term, it's a nationalistic pan-Celtic movement that wanted to like, make the Celts in vogue again? but like their idea of the Celts as "noble savage” - because the modern era was scary. At this point, Pan-Celtic Nationalism is starting to rise as pushback against British colonialism in Celtic nations. Unfortunately it's heavily reliant on the Druid myth as like.... A foundational shared cultural history between the surviving Celtic nations. The point largely is, though, "look at us. We should all be sticking together because we're the same / cousins / brothers". Which leads to a L O T of Celtic culture from various countries kind of getting.... molded into one singular idea- which is USUALLY what we think of today when we think of Celts. Basically everything gets branded as Irish because the Irish were “pure” and a “separate racial identity” as opposed to the Scots and Welsh. It took that idea of a pan-Celtic singularity, and then went ham with it mostly on Irish pre-Christian stuff, and as it occurred not too long after Williams’ fuckery, it really cemented those forgeries and psuedohistories in the cultural memory. And Williams wasn’t exposed as a fraud until after the Celtic Twilight had died down.

Now... Yeats, we all know Yeats- some people recommend his writings for learning about the fairies. DO NOT LISTEN TO THOSE PEOPLE. Yeats makes up an entire tree calendar, and also files all Scottish fairy lore under the “Irish” tab because he’s part of the Celtic Twilight and didn’t you know that everything Celtic is actually Irish? Fuck this guy. #yeetyeats

Enter... Robert Graves- destroyer of histories and all around fuckwit. Graves maked up an ENTIRE religious notion around a mother goddess and shit. And like, the irony of that is the people he supposedly went to originally were like lol dude you're a fucking idiot none of this is real. But he published it anyways and of course it got taken seriously. And then there's a lot of reverse etymology at this point which is just.... really bad linguistics. And because of Graves’ white goddess + said bad linguistics by others, you get Danu.(Danu is a whole thing, please shoot me an ask if you want a post about all of that nonsense). 

So.... Gerald Gardener.... to quote @liminalblessings​ again- “didn’t have a direct role in druidism, except he kind of did.”  See, Gardner had a good friend who was hella interested in the Celtic twilight. Said friend was hella inspiried by Gardner's "recreation" of old British trad witch traditions... But he didn't jive with the old British trad witch traditions. HE jived with Irish Druidry. So while Gardner's doing HIS thing, his friend's doing the modern Druid thing- heavily drawing from Gardner's own work but "making it more historically Druid" Except, as you may have picked up- there is no such thing as “historically druid” that can be reconstructed. Basically he can only pull from Williams, but because he had issues with with the old 15th century on stuff, up to the Twilight era (despite those being his sources) so he tries to distance himself from the earlier movements and leans hella heavy into Gardner's work as a result. Which is, if you've ever wondered, why Wicca and Druidry have such incredibly similar ritual structures and beliefs.

SO, this guy starts the Druid Order, decides that he’s gonna like pull his teachings from Williams- but he's also gonna say that Williams has nothing to do with his druidry because y'know, Williams has relatively recently been revealed as a fraud. This guy goes through the grueling process of ripping off his best bud gardner founding Druidry, right. So The Druid Order has this rebranding in 1951, that lauds the “history of the druids” as written by Williams but simultaneously rejects Williams saying “yeah we have nothing whatsoever to do with that guy.” Mix into this narrative, Gardener’s “burning times” bullshit, and now not only do we have mythical pseudohistorical druids, but a rewrite of Williams’ “the druids survived conversion” which then turned into - “The druids were heavily persecuted by the church and survived a horrible burning times but despite this there’s a tradition of continuous druidic belief.” Here begins the bullshit known as “vestiges of pagan thought”- which took actual historians not even a decade to disprove, and yet still circulates in pagan circles, because nobody picks up a fucking book.  Theoretical Folkloric archaeology became very popular at this time, which postulates (incorrectly) that all folk traditions and folklore absolutely stems from Pagan times and is 100% the Christianization of pagan practices and thoughts- which is not at all true. (Not-so-friendly reminder that Eostre? DOESN’T FUCKING EXIST. STOP FALLING FOR A JOKE MADE BY A MONK)

Td;lr so far- the druids went from 

the Catholic clergy before the Catholics existed 

to 

a religious group that survived conversion

to

druids survived an intense and violent persecution 

And now? In this our 21st century? 

Well.... druidic organizations today tend to still push these ahistorical narratives, that buy into the pagan persecution complex.... and several of these organizations also have known racists and terfs on their recommended reading lists. And while some organizations have made attempts to become more historically accurate- but the end result is usually.... bad. It tends to result in them using a source from like 1960 that’s been disproven 1000 times since by other historians to go “look a historian agrees with us!” rather than like... keep up with current research trends and academic standards. Druids also tend to be hostile to the syncretism of the Irish church which is just..... so fucking dumb. Don’t worship gaelic deities if you can’t accept that our lore are Christian texts about pagan beliefs. 

So yeah..... druids ain’t shit and I can prove it historically. I am also more than willing to send anyone links to full length books on the history of druids if you want to learn more. 

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 1: A Snapshot of the Early Insular Celts”

This is part 1 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the end of the post!

Lesson 1, “A Snapshot of the Early Insular Celts,” begins with a good and solid premise, that in my opinion, everyone approaching Celtic polytheism should begin with, and that is the question of “who were the Celts?” Unfortunately this lesson begins to unravel almost immediately after establishing this premise. Herne posits that the widely held and proven migration of the Celtic peoples across Europe and into the British Isles is in opposition to the theory that the peoples already living in the British Isles evolved more complex societies and engaged in peaceful cultural trade with continental Celts. There is no historical evidence to suggest that this process could not be completed both on a “friendly basis” and “as a mass invasion”- particularly as Herne states, that the first theory allows for the intermarriage of the continental Celts with the peoples already present in the British Isles. There is little evidence to suggest that the Bronze Age hill-forts were ever utilized as defenses, as the available archaeological evidence found at hillforts does not support the theory of a hillfort as a defensive structure but rather suggest that they were utilized, rather successfully, as deterrents. The archaeological record indicates that hill forts were structures that promoted peace within small-scale farming communities and that they are indicative of Ireland’s integration into the continental culture- suggesting a large migration of continental peoples to the British Isles rather than the slow transference of ideals and culture (1). 

Moving onto Herne’s assertion that “Julius Caesar, Pliny and a number of other Classical writers, suggested that Britain was the home of the Druids’ religion, and that Continental Celts sent their sprogs to Britain in order to learn to be Druids,” it is important to note that Herne does not cite their sources- I cannot ascertain in which texts these claims are being made, who translated them, the accuracy of the translations, or who these “other Classical writers” are. Furthermore, Roman narrators are notoriously unreliable, and should not be taken at face value- a fact which Herne notes just a few paragraphs later. Moving away from issues of narrator accuracy- Herne argues that druids were originally to be found in Britain, and here begins a complicated story of conscious misinformation campaigns and pseudo-history. As Ronald Hutton says in his book Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain, “[the druids] were portrayed as the timelessly ancient priests of the British, whom the Celts adopted when they reached Britain”. This description is in reference to the ways in which The Most Ancient Order of Druids/The Ancient Druid Order tried to rebrand themselves in the 1951 campaign largely formed out of pseudo-history that was built upon the teachings of Iolo Morganwg, who was ironically rejected as an ancestor by the Order. This description of a conscious misinformation campaign from the Order, lines up very neatly with Herne’s argument that druids originated in Britain. The actual historiography of the study of druids is much more complicated than Herne or the Order suggest- beginning in the fifteenth century Germans created a pseudo-history surrounding the existence of druids in the Rhineland as a way to lend credence to a newly forming German identity in opposition to the Italians. The French, followed by the Scots, and then the Welsh were next to create pseudo-histories of druidic influence and power in the formation of national identities and as precursors of Catholic clergy, it is into these pseudo-histories that Iolo Morganwg (the simultaneous rejected ancestor and source of inspiration for the Order) was born. These pseudo-histories contain the claim made by Herne that the main schools or colleges of druidic thought and learning were located in Britain (2).

Herne’s next claims that the Celts never referred to themselves as such, and that he word comes from the Greek Keltoi are correct, as are their claims that the “tribes were independent entities, with their own languages, styles of dress, types of food etc.” and their statement “that each tribe was different in subtle ways, it is hard to make broad descriptions that would have been true of all the British tribes”- what is not correct however, is their claim that these tribes were united by a shared religion. Among the most famous books on the Celtic tribes is The Celts: The People Who Came Out of Darkness by Gerhard Herm, though a bit old, as it was published in 1977, is thoroughly research and the text clearly outlines the ways that the various tribes that would be called “Celts” were separated linguistically, culturally, and religiously (3). One can clearly see the religious differences present in the area that was inhabited by the Celts by simply looking at the different myths and folklore that arose from the different regions - Irish myth and folklore is different from Scottish, which is different from Brythonic, which is different from Gaulish, which is different from Germanic, etc. I’m not citing sources here because I’m hopeful that we all know that there are differences between Welsh, Irish, and Germanic folklore, all of which are countries/regions that were inhabited by the ancient Celts. 

Herne’s claims that the Picts’ woad tattoos “[were] like talismans and [could] impart protection in battle, courage, aid from a particular spirit etc.” is baseless- there is no scholarship to support this argument. Once again, I cannot comment on the veracity of these unnamed “classical writers”- and as Herne has already pointed out just one paragraph prior, classical writers are notoriously unreliable narrators, the fact that Herne is taking their words at face value is troubling . This being said, we do know that the British and Gallic Celts were known to bleach their hair and dye their eyebrows (4). 

I’m waiting to comment on Herne’s claims that “they were also very honourable and, once giving their word, would stick to it,” etc. as “lesson” 7 focuses on values, morals, and ideals and I’d rather not repeat the same information over and over again. 

Herne has a distressing habit of not citing any of their goddamn sources, which means that as I have no idea which commentators they’re referencing as speaking on the ‘three subsets of the British religious caste’ I have no way of verifying if these are legitimate sources, or even what the sources are. I’ve mentioned this before, and will very likely mention it in each rebuttal- an appeal to an unnamed authority, particularly when that authority is known to be an unreliable narrator, is not viable. What I do know is that the structure and function of the druids described by Herne is the same as what is referenced in the pseudo-histories discussed by Ronald Hutton in his book on the history of druids in Britain (5). Herne’s assessment of the duties performed by Irish and Welsh bards is correct, if a bit oversimplified- but this is a “snapshot” introductory lesson, so I’m willing to forgive the simplification. The information regarding the ranks of the filidh from the Book of Ballymote is accurate although I find its placement in the text odd and disjointed.

I do, however, take issue with Herne’s claim that the ovates might have used ogham as a form of divination- or that ogham is “full of.... poetic imagery.” Ogham is simply an alphabet, and unless one considers the plants often associated with the letters to be “symbolism and poetic imagery” I personally don’t see it. Once again, Herne makes a broad claim without naming or citing what they’re referring to in their claim that “a number of myths refer to ogam being used in a magical context.” This is problematic in that there are often several versions of different myths and that Herne does not not define what they consider to be a magical context. I’ll go further into depth with my issues surrounding Herne’s understanding of ogham in my rebuttal to Lesson 16, which focuses on the alphabet. This is not to say that one could not create a divination system utilizing the ogham alphabet (which many have done), but that there is no real historical precedent of ogham being used as divination tool by the ancient Celts as nearly all of the extant ogham stones are name markers (6). 

Herne says that most of the “five great tribes of supernatural beings who held sway before the coming of mortal kind” remain shadowy- this is blatantly false, there were more than five and we know the names of these tribes (Partholanians, Nemedians, Fomóire, Firbolgs, Milesians, etc.) from the Book of Invasions, an albeit pseudo-historical record of the kings of Ireland that tracks the invasions of these tribes and the ways in which the tribes are interconnected. Herne’s further assertion that the Tuatha dé are the only ones referred to as gods is laughable at best, as some figures from the other tribes are considered gods alongside the Tuatha dé and feature prominently in myths and stories (7). I’ll go more into detail on Herne’s interpretation of the Tuatha dé in my rebuttal to Lesson 3, including looking further into the “people of the goddess Danu.”

Herne makes a decisive statement about the way the ancient Celtic peoples viewed their gods, and while inferences can be made from the archaeological record of rituals, the surviving stories, and observances made by the classical authors (who I hope by now you will remember are notoriously unreliable), but the simple fact remains that there are almost no contemporary sources on Gaelic polytheism, and many of the sources we do have were written long after the peaceful conversion to and successful syncretism with the early Catholic Church. In essence we don’t know how the ancient Celts viewed their gods, we think we have an understanding of the faith, concepts of divinity, animism, and ancestor veneration- but these are simply theories and interpretations, the primary source material simply isn’t there for us to make definite comments on how they viewed their gods (and some would even argue that the ancient Celts weren’t polytheists at all, but I’m not having that conversation today). These interpretations of how the Celts viewed their gods have been debated for centuries and much of our interpretation comes from writings of those from other religions and cultures rather than from the writings of the ancient Celts themselves. What Herne gets right, is the locations in which the ancient Celts worshiped, overwhelmingly the archaeological record suggests outdoor worship at natural landmarks (8), and while Herne’s “lessons” cover a swath of topics there is little on the subject of ritual- if you’re interested in reading more I’d be happy to provide my sources on ritual in Ancient Ireland to anyone interested. 

That’s all for today! Sources are listed below. If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

1. James O’Driscoll. “A multi-layered model for Bronze Age hillforts in Ireland and Europe.” The Journal of Irish Archaeology, Vol. 26 (2017): 77-100.

2. Ronald Hutton. Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 2011). 

3. Gerhard Herm. The Celts: The People Who Came Out of Darkness (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977). 

4.  Patrick Weston Joyce. A Smaller Social History of Ancient Ireland: Treating of the Government, Military System, and Law; Religion, Learning, and Art; Trades, Industries, and Commerce; Manners, Customs, and Domestic Life, of the Ancient Irish People (Longmans, Green, & Company, 1908); Peter Wilcox and Angus McBride. Romes Enemies: British and Gallic Celts. (London: Osprey, 1985).

5.  Ronald Hutton. Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 2011).

6.  Charles Graves. "On the Ogham Character and Alphabet. Part II." Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1836-1869) 4 (1847): 356-68.

7. R.A.S. Macalister and D. P. Curtin. Lebor Gabala Erenn. (Philadelphia: Dalcassian Publishing, 2018); Mark Williams. Ireland’s Immortals: A History of the Gods of Irish Myth. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016). 

8. Katherine Leonard. Ritual in Late Bronze Age Ireland: Material Culture, Practices, Landscape Setting, and Social Context. (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2015). 

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson 2: Druids Ancient and Modern”

This is part 2 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! Each number in parenthesis (#) corresponds to a footnote formatted in the Chicago manual of style located in the block quote at the very end of the post! If I am referencing a concept or (what I believe to be) a well-known myth in passing, there will be a link to a description of the concept or to the story if you click on it.

Mamma Mia, here we go again- back again to refute some ahistorical druidic drivel. Herne begins this “lesson” with a (not-so) startling lack of awareness- the images they paint as what people think of as druids are how the media and druidic organizations have portrayed druids; the reason that people don’t think of “female” druids, is because historically, women have not been portrayed as druids. This is not to say that all women must be AFAB, merely that my understanding of Herne’s writing is that the use of the word “female” was meant to mean “women,” a wording choice that I do not agree with, particularly when Herne uses “men” rather “males” but not “women” instead of “female.” And that is just the tip of the iceberg with this “lesson.”

As I mentioned repeatedly in Part 1, and as Herne asserts in “lesson” 1 and in this “lesson,” classical authors are notoriously unreliable. Furthermore, Herne continues their troubling habit of not citing their sources, the most they’ll say is “X said Y” but not in which collection of documents, who translated the text and when, or any relevant information that could be useful in finding the source from which they’ve pulled the quote. As I said in Part 1 - “an appeal to an unnamed authority, particularly when that authority is known to be an unreliable narrator, is not viable.” 

Beyond these mysterious “classical writers” who paint conflicting pictures of druidism as it was practiced in continental Europe- Herne makes some troubling claims. The same text that agrees with Herne’s statement that the Celts and Pythagoras believed in the same ideas of the soul, disagrees with Herne on which direction these ideas travelled. Simply put, in Herne’s statement that “others felt [that Pythagoras had learned from the Druids]” it is clear that by “others” they mean themselves. Indeed, the only source I have found that corroborates their claims, also contradicts itself. Despite arguing that the Celts and Pythagoras both believed in some version of Orphic doctrine- the author also says: 

A group of Classic writers would persuade us that the Druids in Gaul and the British Island were actually disciples of Pythagoras and taught his chief doctrines, including the origin of the soul. The group, including Caesar, seem to have drawn their information from a common source, whatever it was. They also seem to have had difficulty in understanding what exactly it was they were reporting.

While Edgar might agree with these classical authors- and Herne with Edgar, there is yet another issue with both of their works- and this issue is centered on the topic of transmigration (the belief that after death, the soul can be reborn into any form, not just human). Edgar only mentions one instance of supposed transmigration in Celtic folklore/myth- and it’s not transmigration. He speaks of the story of Tuan MacCairill, who retained his identity despite being transformed into a stag, boar, hawk, and salmon all while maintaining his identity- the key aspect of this story is that MacCairill does not die until he is consumed while in his salmon form and only then is he reborn. This is representative of a spectacular lack of reading comprehension- shape shifting =/= reincarnation into animal form (1). 

I could spend an entire post writing about everything that’s wrong with Herne’s description of modern interest in druidic activity (modern as in the broad historical period, not present day)- but as I’ve already covered much of the history, or rather pseudo-history, pertaining to the establishment of modern Druidic Orders in Part 1, I will do nothing but encourage anyone willing to slog through the often complex and confusing history of the pseudo-histories that are the basis of druidism to read Ronald Hutton’s book, Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (2).

Herne makes 3 final points, and they’re all wrong. 

The first point is that “during the 20th century a growing number of people wanted to learn about what the original Druids believed, and to explore their religion without mixing in notions from monotheist religions,” which is a polite way of saying that New-Age anti-Christian pagans decided to ignore syncretism and thus nearly all of the surviving sources on Ancient Celtic religion as well as all of the pseudo-histories on the origins and beliefs of druidism and decided to make up something new that would fit into their anti-Christian worldview. As I said in Part 1, “we don’t know.“ 

The second point is that “in the last twenty-off years a huge number of web sites have sprung up, making previously difficult-to-access information about the earlier cultures readily available” - if the information that most pagans share online is true then certainly Abraham Lincoln must have been the one to say “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.” The fact that Herne, whose first two of twenty “lessons” on Gaelic Polytheism are so baseless (and readily available on the internet) says that information is easier to access, it must also mean that misinformation (much like really anything put out by druidic organizations) is just as readily, if not more readily available. 

The third point, is actually Herne contradicting themselves. In the final paragraph they assert that “some [modern druids] cannot find (or don’t wish to be part of) a group, and so operate alone.” Earlier in this very same “lesson” Herne said that  "being a Druid is largely a matter of being able to offer services to friends, family, the wider community," and that "it is debatable if a person can really be a Druid if they have no tribe to work for," statements that are actually correct. It is incredibly clear that Ancient Celtic society was at its core community based, that its worship was community oriented, and through ancestor veneration (which I go into detail on here) were focused not only on those living, but also those deceased members of their community. Gaelic Polytheism is based on a community structure- much of modern paganism is defined by this foolish concept that ‘we can all go it alone’ but when the history of one’s faith is that of a close-knit community, the question becomes not if one can go it alone, but should one go it alone? And the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”

That’s all for today! Sources are listed below. If you want more reading on any of the topics mentioned in this post feel free to shoot me an ask or a message and I’ll provide you with a reading list!

1. William Edgar. “Beliefs Concerning the Soul in Prehistoric Scotland.” Transactions of the Glasgow Archaeological Society (1941, New Series, Vol. 10). 7-25.

2.  Ronald Hutton. Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain (New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, 2011).

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson Five: The Sidhe and Other Spirits”

This is part 5 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here.

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! As this post doesn’t have anything academic to dispute but rather just interpretations of lore, and logic- there are no cited sources in this post!

“Lesson Five” begins in a way that isn’t exactly wrong- but relies on a lot of Herne’s own interpretations and personal biases. It’s quite possible that the oral tradition I was raised in prevents me from immediately associating the word “fairy” with “ Victorian paintings of little whimsical Tinkerbell things flitting about with butterfly wings”- and it may be wishful thinking, but I’d assume that anyone seeking out scholarship on CeltPol would at the very least be familiar with the now widespread knowledge that the sidhe are dangerous. 

While Herne is right in their assertion that the word sidhe originally referred to the burial mounds from the Bronze and Neolithic periods- and that overtime the word began to describe not only the hills themselves, but those who dwelled within them. Where Herne loses me is their argument that sidhe can also mean “profound peace,” a translation which I have never seen elsewhere. Futhermore, Herne argues that this odd translation of sidhe echoes a Lithuanian concept known as darna- Herne, per tradition, does not offer anything resembling a source to back-up this hot take. 

Herne’s assertion that the line between deity and sidhe is blurry at times, and that this fuzziness is not a problem. From a reconstructionist’s perspective what makes a deity amounts to how that entity has been treated by past practitioners, what the historical record and lore can reveal to us, and of course our UPG and intuition. 

It is apparent in the lore that the sidhe live in an otherworld that is connected to our world through portals- on this matter, Herne and I are in agreement. Herne actually acknowledges that the distinction of seelie and unseelie come from Scottish folklore, but does not mention the other classifications that have been given to the sidhe by authors like Yeats or Katherine Mary Briggs in this section of the “lesson.” In this section, Herne also discusses the concept of the changeling, and the way that some folklorists have posited the idea that changelings may have been an explanation for children with downs syndrome- but Herne ignores that often in changeling stories, parents do not realize that their child has been “switched” until they’re older, which has led to some  interpretations of changelings are explanations for children on the autism spectrum. When Herne finally mentions Briggs’ house spirits, they don’t talk as much about Celtic house spirits as they do Russian and Roman house spirits- which seems like an odd choice.

I’m not sure that I agree with the idea of the Fomóire as sidhe, this is not to say that they cannot be interpreted as such, but rather that my family and I have always interpreted them as another of the “great tribes of supernatural beings” mentioned all the way back in part 1. And while Herne asserts that “good and evil” were notions brought in by Christian missionaries, this does not mean that the ancient Celts saw the Fomóire through the same forgiving lens as Herne- from the lore we know that the ancient Celts and the Tuatha dé largely viewed them as enemies, and yet there are records of marriages between the Fomóire and the Tuatha dé. This isn’t so much a case of Herne’s “If a wolf eats a goat, is it evil? To the goat’s mother the wolf is a monster, but to the passerby it is just a carnivore doing what carnivores were designed to do.” This interpretation bothers me as it seems to absolve the Fomóire of any agency and rather reduces them to the status of creature, rather than a spirit or other supernatural being. 

That’s all for today! I’ll be taking a bit of a break from the manifesto for a while to mentally recover, but when I come back I’ll be moving onto “Lessons” 6-10 before taking another break. As always if you have questions about my writing or would like a reading list, please don’t hesitate to reach out!

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

A Rebuttal of “Lesson Three: Gods and Goddesses”

This is part 3 of my 20-part manifesto on why druids should do some research for once. You can find the master-post here. 

This is a long post, so the actual rebuttal is under the cut! 

Herne actually beings Lesson 3 with a statement that I agree with to an extent. “In the modern world we like to divide things up into neat boxes......The ancient world was somewhat messier.” Herne goes on to describe a process known as syncretism, though they don’t use that word and haven’t expressed any real understanding of the process. Herne finishes this paragraph with the question- “In what sense can any deity be said to have a nationality?” which is where Herne and I begin to diverge. While it’s true that the ancient world was “somewhat messier” and it’s possible to trace versions of deities across time and space this does not mean that they’re the same deity. An example used by Herne is Akte (Anatolian) -> Hecate (Greek) -> Hekate (Roman), this does not mean that the Roman Hekate is the same as the Anatolian Akte, or that the Greek Hecate is the same as the Roman Hekate (plot twist, Rome didn’t just steal Greek mythology). Herne’s example is not factually accurate by any stretch of the imagination, but I’m using it as a way to show the issues in their logic. As deities move across space and time the way they are worshiped and interpreted change. In essence- a deity can be said to have a nationality, when a distinctive interpretation of that deity is found within that nationality- notably there are key differences between an Cailleach as she’s known in Ireland and as she’s known in Scotland. 

Herne says, not incorrectly that “when we talk about Celtic gods we usually mean ones worshiped by British, Irish or some continental tribes during the Iron Age,” and that “these days people who are not even remotely Celtic by birth perform rituals in honour of Celtic deities.” I think that it’s important to keep posts like these these ( X , X ) in mind when talking about the concept of “Celtic by birth” as it applies to Gaelic polytheism. Once again, I feel the need to remind everyone that there was no pan-Celtic religion, anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Indeed there are “hundreds of statues and altar stones found throughout Celtic lands “ and it’s true that “many of the statues have no names, and it is anyone’s guess whom they represent.” What Herne isn’t saying is that we can’t prove if any of these altar stones are pagan- anymore than we can prove who the statues are of. There’s no scholarship to suggest that every altar stone in Ireland is pagan, anymore than there is to suggest that they’re all Christian.  

Herne is right when they say that we need to stop to think about how the Celts viewed their gods- and for the third post in a row, I have to say WE DON’T KNOW HOW THEY VIEWED THEIR GODS and while we can make assumptions about how the Celts viewed the gods, we cannot make definite statements like “early Celts saw their Gods as ancestors..... people probably looked on them in the same way they might a wise and powerful uncle, mother, cousin etc” (particularly not when the “evidence” for this claim is a mistranslation of an Cailleach). Herne says they were polytheists, others have argued that they weren’t polytheists at all. I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Herne here, but they have a point when they say:

Many pagans these days believe that all goddesses are aspects of One Goddess, and likewise with the gods (this idea is usually called duotheism, or duolatry by academics). This is a perfectly valid belief, but it is worth knowing that there is no evidence that the ancient British tribes shared it.

This is true, what Herne does not discuss is that many pagans view goddesses and gods in this manner, because of the strong Wiccan influence in neo-pagan and druidic circles (assuming one wants to make the distinction between neo-pagans and druids). 

Herne goes on to use ‘she’ to refer to druids, rather than the more appropriate ‘they,’ and after Part 2′s gendered language fiasco this is a bit worrying. Beyond this, they’re right in the fact that every deity has agency and should be approached as individuals rather than as archetypes or monoliths. You can read more here. 

It is ironic to me that Herne says that “just because two deities have some things in common, doesn’t mean they are the same deity, or identical in other respects” but then goes on to make some - uh- pretty bold claims, like their claim that Rhiannon and the Morrigan are the same deity (yeah, idk either), or their claims that Ogmios and Ogma are related because their names look similar.....

That’s all for today! Since pretty much everything refuted has either already been discussed in a previous post or is logic based I haven’t cited any academic sources this time around, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t still provide reading lists on topics or issues brought up in this post- if you’d like more information please don’t hesitate to reach out! Until next time!

[bean-na-farraige-agus-foraoise]

What do you mean when you say you're anti-druid? anti-people today calling themselves druids? Anti-people believing in druids? General dislike of druids? Specific dislike of a certain aspect of druidism or the beliefs surrounding it/misconceptions of it?

Oooh boy, okay so.... 

So this is a loaded question- so I’m sorry if I’m giving you more than you bargained for.

Druids did exist, we know this, believing in them is fine- where the issue lays is in modern druidism itself which is an ahistorical narrative and is basically just Wicca-lite with Celtic flavoring. And the reasoning behind that is that while we know druids existed, we don’t have any reliable sources to tell us what they did, what they believed, etc. I give a brief history of modern druidism in this post, and recommend reading this book for a more in depth analysis by a well known and respected folklorist. 

But largely, and what I think you’re getting at, is my issue with druidism in the modern sense. Druidic belief in modern CeltPol/GaelPol is not based on any semblance of historical truth- druidic resources and organizations are based on pseudohistorical narratives that originate from political movements- rather than on what primary documents and archaeological records we do have. Druidic organizations push anti-Christian rhetoric, have terfs and racists on their recommended reading lists, and just generally they have bad takes. But druidic organizations are among the only real established community we in CeltPol/GaelPol have, so a lot of us join druidic organizations when we’re starting out looking for that community, and a lot of us then find druidic teachings to be lacking in substance and start looking at the historical record ourselves, to gain a better understanding. So while there are a lot of reconstructionists and revivalists who are members of druidic organizations they remain only for the community rather than for the actual druidic belief- and these people make a point of distancing themselves. By the nature of druidic teachings, one cannot be a druid and a reconstructionist- typically when druidic organizations “make an effort to become more historically grounded” what they do is pull up a history that’s been torn apart by historians 1000 times over and go “look x historian agrees with us” or they’ll harken back to the Celtic Twilight. 

I don’t like druidism because I cannot comprehend why anyone would feel drawn to a polytheistic faith and then ignore everything about how the deities they supposedly love used to be worshipped, how one could claim to love a deity or a belief system without understanding the culture of those who believed it, or understanding how the gods changed with the times, how they could just.... ignore everything about how that deity is accustomed to being worshipped in favor of some watered down archetype that makes them feel good without challenging them. I don’t get it. And beyond that- I have very little patience for anti-Christian worldviews, and druids tend to have massive pagan persecution complexes and often reject the syncretism of the early church by creating false narratives of coercion and violence in the conversion period. Druidism isn’t Celtic, it’s Wiccan- and what of it is Celtic? Isn’t accurate to the lore or the historical record. Druidism is based on lies and political pandering that have nothing to do with the worship of the Gaelic/Celtic gods and I want people to stop pretending otherwise and put in a little work.