h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

One of the questions I often ask those nice people I meet at camps, festivals, groves and on-line is 'what are you?'. I get a wide range of replies as you might expect, but one I am hearing more often is 'I am (a) druid'. I then tend to examine the claimant with more interest, wait a few long heartbeats and then venture my second question, 'why do you call yourself (a) druid?'.

Confusion usually ensues as the nice person footles around for one of the standard replies:
1. I completed/am doing the OBOD/Albion Conclave/ADF/some other course.
2. I am a member of OBOD/TDN/BDO/ADF/such and such a grove.
3. I have read a lot of books by, attended seminars by, listened to, or met Emma Restall Orr/Philip Shallcrass/Philip Carr-Gomm/Ronald Hutton(?)/Isaac Bonewitz/Ross Nichols/some other geezer.
4. I have attended a camp (or camps).
5. I go to the open rituals at Stonehenge/Avebury/any other henge.

Only once I have heard the reply "I am a priestess to a community of other like minded souls. I lead the grove in celebrations, weddings, namings and partings. I visit the sick and the lonely, counsel the bereaved and the sad, campaign on issues important to my community, and grow herbs and vegetables on my allotment which I contribute to a box scheme. I also teach those interested in knowing more about druidry, including doing sessions for the local high school RE programme."

This person was a druid, a priestess of a community and contributor to the lives of many for no expected reward. She served her community willingly and tried to exemplify the teachings of her gods by her actions. As far as I know she does so still.

If we are to rebuild the concept of druidry for the modern age we must begin to understand that being a druid is a lifelong commitment to service of your community, not a badge, nor a label, nor a reward for completing a course, nor even a hierarchical position in an order.

The problem really lies in semantics. When the founding fathers and mothers of modern druidry began to reassemble the British native religions from the scraps left by classical scholars, the understandably incomplete analysis of archaeologists and the freemason-inspired tampering of the 18th and 19th century celticists, they needed a name that would immediately bring to mind what they were aiming at. 'Druid' and 'Druidry' fitted that requirement.

We are now nearly half a century on from that rebirth. It is time to begin to reclaim the name 'druid' and place it in its real context. I am not a druid and neither, I suspect, are you. We are probably not ready to take on such a huge responsibility in our communities. Indeed very few people in the British native religious community are - I can think of only two or three off the top of my head.

If we do need a label then I would put forward British Native Religions as a starter - anyone else got a better one? I would genuinely like to hear of a more apt or poetic name - though anything related to Arthur will get binned automatically.

It happens in all religions! Get over it, it's too late to change now.

I'll stick with heathenry.

Anglo-saxon-based heathenry if I need to differentiate from the more separatist Nordic versions, but heathenry will do for most purposes.

--

Jez

Hi Astro ,

It is never too late to change, as you well know my friend.

There is a group called Brython who are making great strides in separating native Brythonic religion from the new age morass that is modern 'druidry'.

As they say - watch this space...

Matholwch .

I see no reason why you should drop the druid label in favour of the new label.

Imagine a time comes when the Roman Catholic Church is long gone, and when its whole written corpus is lost, and all that is left is the last, late writings of a general who wiped out the last Pope and his cardinals in a war lasting a few years.

Take a couple of millennia and add them to the end of that time.

Now have a set of people reading the writings of that general, nd deciding to recreate the RCC.

On the basis of reading and interpreting three or four pages, in total, of written evidence, none of it recorded by members of the catholic religion, they decide that they are now Popes, and call themselves Popes. Other people read the same pages, rewrite them into several hundred books, and give courses in how to become a Pope.

Everyone who has been to one of those courses, or read one of those books, feels that they can call themselves Pope and defend that right on internet forums all over the globe.

--

That, in simplification, is where the title Druid has got itself recently.

--

Jez

Very nicely put Jez

Astro. The label 'British Native Religions' is a far more apt and accurate description than 'Druid'. It helps people form in their minds a clear picture of what is being proffered for their participation. It also allows there to be regional and temporal differences between practitioners.

For example: The Brython group are trying to put together a listing of all native British gods that we know of through ancient inscriptions and the writings of visitors to these isles and other commentators from the Pre-Roman, Roman Occupation and immediately post-Roman periods of British history.

The idea is to begin to identify any common gods across the British mainland, such as is available to the Irish through their better documented chronicles.

The problem is that regional differences are pronounced, and the water is further muddied by later imports from Rome, Greece the near continent and eventually Scandinavia.

Similarly is it all but impossible to identify exactly where and even when the title 'druid' existed in British history and for how long. Most of what is known about this caste comes from observations and hearsay of druids on the continent.

There are no first hand accounts of druids from anyone who actually visited Britain and met one.

To study this in detail it is worth reading Prof. Ronald Hutton's - The Druids. Hutton is one who could be accused of smuggery in the first degree, but there is nothing wrong with his research or indeed his conclusions.

Cheers,
Matholwch .

Hello Math!
Did the same religion exist in Gaul as well? I ask only because some fictional literature places them there...

I was thinking in particular of classical music's most famous druid, Norma, title role of the eponymous opera by Bellini.

Hello Andrew

A good question indeed.

The evidence that does exist, especially the work of Posidonius who actually visited Gaul and met its druid caste, places druids firmly in pre-Roman Gaulish society.

We have only a couple of references to druids in Britain, and those by Romans who never visited. The most famous is Tacitus' account of the destruction of Anglesey written decades after the events. Unfortunately he was an overtly political writer who would play with the facts to suit his own purposes.

There is considerable archaeological evidence that religious practices were observed by the native peoples of Britain from the Stone Age right up to and through the Roman occupation. What we do not have is a single identifiable 'druid' site, nor a grave of a 'druid' nor any inscriptions to them.

There are some references in early Christian Church histories to various Saints meeting, conquering or converting 'druids' (mostly in Ireland). But all of these were written in the early middle ages and are of suspect authenticity to say the least.

19th century religious writers and historians made much of the druids in an attempt to show that:
1. the British were a lost tribe of Israel,
2. the druids were monotheistic and existed to prepare the way in Britain for the acceptance of Christ.
This served their purpose of proving that Britain's dominant religion - Protestant Christianity - had an earleir claim to true christianity than the hated Church of Rome.

What we do know is that the early Britons had a living relationship to regional Gods, Spirits of the Land (especially of water) and their ancestors, that was very important to them. However, there is no solid evidence (yet) for the existence of British 'Druids'.

Matholwch .

Very interesting discussion.

Are you saying that the word druid is the issue because of the reinvention of the whole concept in the 1700/1800s? Or are you saying that there is no evidence for a class of male spiritual experts in the pre-Roman British culture?

I get the reinvention from a few hundred years ago, and also the problems with the new age revivals, but I'm unclear if you are saying there is no evidence separate from that to suggest that such people existed in Britain.

I've always thought of the 'druids' (for lack of a more accurate term) were the equivalent of the Maori tohunga. Popularly seen now as spiritual priests and/or healers I think tohunga were/are in fact the class of Maori who held and taught a wide range of specialist and advanced knowledge. Oral universities maybe. I'd be incredibly surprised if no such class existed in Britain, although I can see evidence of such might be hard to come by given the time that has passed.

I appreciated the OP btw. In NZ it's not druids that are the cool thing, it's shamans. Unfortunately to be a shaman seems to require attending weekend workshops that cost a packet and it's rare to find a practicing shaman who is grounded in the community description you give for 'real' druids.

Hi Kea

"Are you saying that the word druid is the issue because of the reinvention of the whole concept in the 1700/1800s? Or are you saying that there is no evidence for a class of male spiritual experts in the pre-Roman British culture?"

Both really, though the latter is the main point of this piece.

"I get the reinvention from a few hundred years ago, and also the problems with the new age revivals, but I'm unclear if you are saying there is no evidence separate from that to suggest that such people existed in Britain."

There isn't any evidence at this point. Only one observer who had some first hand experience said that druids came from Britain and that was Julius Caesar. He was still smarting at the time from his only major defeat at the hands of those very same British Tribes. He also needed a casus belli (cause for war) to fund his invasion of Britain by arguing that supposedly rebellious druids in Gaul were supplied and supported by druids in Britain.

People forget that Roman writers were not scrupulous historians as we see them now, but men who wrote with political purpose.

Tacitus used the term 'druid' to describe the priests of Anglesey not because he had access to first hand evidence that they were druids, but because his readers would understand the term.

We do not have any first hand accounts or archaeological evidence to show that the tribal priests of pre-Roman Britain were druids, as defined by the writings of Posidonius and Julius Caesar in Gaul.

The later recreation/reinvention of the British 'Druidr' for both political and Christian reasons (and personal gain in the case of Iolo Morgannwg) in the 17th-19th century is what has really muddied the whole issue.

The pagan reinvention of the latter half of the twentieth century is built upon sand. Undoubtedly the tribes of Britain related to the gods, spirits and ancestors of these islands. Almost certainly, given the models we can see from their neighbours on the Continent and in scandinavia, they would have had priests. There is no evidence they were 'druids'.

This is considered a heresy and one that has got myself and few of my friends in hot water with the modern 'druid' community. A lot of people have invested time, money and credibility in building up the myth of British druidry as being a direct descendant of ancient practices. A true and unique British pagan path.

What they have failed to do is to really invest the time into connecting with the gods and spirits of our land and those of their ancestors. Instead they perform rituals founded on the writings of a demonstrable fraud Iolo Morgannwg, and adapted alongside those of modern Wicca. They wear robes, carry staves and wear jewellery all based upon the romantic 'celtic' resurgence of the late 19th century.

Even if we use the definition of the role of a druid published by the various modern Druid organizations, and based upon the same shaky sources I mention above, the whole thing is still ridiculous. It is the only religion in Britain in which every single member is supposed to aspire to become a priest. Thus we get the unedifying spectacle of public rituals in which everyone feels the need to play a priestly part, and these usually then descend through chaos and on into pure farce.

When I first began writing for H2G2 I had been a solitary practitioner for 25 years and had only recently found the modern druid community. I described myself as a druid and proudly wore the badge for all to see. Now, seven years on, I describe myself as a British Tribal Polytheist. I can see that the Archdruid wears no clothes and have said so publicly.

Modern druidry does serve a purpose for many of its adherents. It fills a need for them and I am not the one to kick away their crutch. But in no way can they prove that what they do is based upon ancient practices or even that there were actually Gaulish-style druids in pre-Roman British society.

Onto your final point. In NZ, as far as I understand it, there is a continuous tradition amongst the Maori people for their own religious caste.

However, I do not see how a tradition (shamanry) based upon the lives of Siberian nomads has any more relevance there than it does here. John and Caitlin Mathews, bless them, invented the term 'celtic shaman'. I wonder if they realised when they did this that they would spawn yet another new age fad from which various fools and frauds would try and profit.

My general rule of thumb is this. People who really have a connection as adherents or priests of the native British Gods pass on this experience freely. If someone tries to sell you their experiences through a course or through a book then they should be ignored. The Gods gave us these experiences freely and it is in the tribal nature of the ancient British peoples to share, not charge. It is part of the duty of hospitality.

Bendithion,
Matholwch the Heretic.

Almost certainly, given the models we can see from their neighbours on the Continent and in scandinavia, they would have had priests. There is no evidence they were 'druids'.


Heathens in those countries did not have priests.

The thing about the heathen 'religion' is that, like much of Roman practice, it was the man of the household that did some things, the wif of the household that did others, and the lord and lady (the loaf makers and givers) of the community that did the rest. Basically, a social thing done by the people who had the resources at their fingertips.

No priests, sorry. We didn't fit the tripartite model

--

Jez