Druidism, Druidry, Druidic??

[Adam Of Avalon]

From what I've heard some Druids practice magick and some don't. What's the skivvy? And by the way, what's the correct term, Druidism of Druidry?

[Maggie]

Originally posted by Adam Of Avalon
From what I've heard some Druids practice magick and some don't. What's the skivvy? And by the way, what's the correct term, Druidism of Druidry?

It depends on what your definition of magick is, :)

I've seen both terms, I don't believe one is 'more correct' than another.

There is a Druid forum where this was discussed recently, you should still be able to find those messages.

Regards,

Maggie

[eneurian]

i believe its a matter of semantics. druidism is a label used when refering to the way of life as a religion, druidry is a label for the practice of the way of life.
i often lapse back into my early teachings for reference but i think this is much akin to: Hebrew is the language, Judaism is the religion, Israeli is the nationality...druidism is the religion, druidry is the way of life.
i think of majik as something natural that you don't yet know how to do. we all 'do majik' something as simple as conjuring a parking place or something large and with great responsibility as conjuring a rainy day for your own pleasure. once you know how to do it, it is no longer majik.

[WildSpirit]

Adam, it's a pleasure to get to answer your questions.

Initially, the practice of magick is really more of a chosen desire among the practicioner. A Wiccan could be a Wiccan and not practice magick (my mother actually goes along those lines). It is simply the fact that magick is an aspect of mysticism, which is in hand an aspect of most, if not all, Pagan ways of life.

Druidry and Druidism are two different terms, aye. Druidism is simply the name used to label the Druid religion as a religion; Druidry is the label for the ways of life that a Druid follows. I know this sounds confusing, but think on it, and it should make sense.

I hope these answers are of help. :)

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by Adam Of Avalon
From what I've heard some Druids practice magick and some don't. What's the skivvy? And by the way, what's the correct term, Druidism of Druidry?

Insofar as I'm concerned, "druidism" isn't a proper word at all - in fact, I'm rather affronted by its use. But insofar as the practice of magic... That depends on the person. For most of us, doing magic is as natural as breathing. Others don't use it unless it's absolutely necessary. But such magic is rarely ritual magic. When one is more practiced, it doesn't take much more than a focusing of the mind and will.

[Raindancer]

I'm Wicca, not Druid, although many people who know me say that they are surprised at that, as they figured me to be more druid. I don't know, and I really don't know enough about the Druidic way to make a call on that. I used to live in a forest and feel a real affinity for that, but I don't know. I consider myself a simple... well maybe not too simple kitchen witch.

Anyway... I was interested in some of the comments on doing magick. I've done it in various forms, and I consider divination a form of it, but my personal feeling is that its like a martial art, to be used when really necessary, and then, with a sense of responsibility.

As actions all have consequences, some of which can't be predicted, it seems kind of reckless to be mucking around with a lot of energy, like a kid with a machine gun. All without considering that you may end up getting something a lot different than what you wanted, taking everyone else with you. There should be balance, and capricious frollicking about with magickal energies just has to mess with that considerably. But thats my thoughts, and that, along with a dollar, will buy you a cup of coffee ( somewhere) :-)

I concur with Draeconin's statement : " Others don't use it unless it's absolutely necessary. But such magic is rarely ritual magic. When one is more practiced, it doesn't take much more than a focusing of the mind and will." Thats mostly what I do: picture it and make it happen. I just discovered along the way, that I didn't need a lot of stuff anymore. But magick, I think, is a lot like spices, a little, used well can go a long way. Not every dish is meant to taste like curry. Again, thats just my thoughts...
BB
Raindancer

[Raindancer]

MM... I don't know if that was pointed in my direction, but if it is, let me clarify.

I didn't say I was a druid, I don't know enough about it to make that claim. Perhaps if I did, I might be, but at present, its something that some people seem to think I might be at home with. I don't know, maybe. I grew up in the forest and llove and miss my redwods way out here.

I didn't say I don't do magick, but I like to use it with discretion. Not every situation calls for it, a lot I can do other ways. Its been my impression that one of the negative aspects of the Judeo-Christian belief system, is that they use the words in the bible relating to creation, the ones where it says man was made to rule over the earth and the animals on it, to mean that we can do whatever we like.

As we all know, or should, just going out and doing something without thinking about what the consequences might be, is just plain asking for trouble. You wouldn't just go out somewhere and build something without an environmental impact study, or at least I wouldn't. So with magick. I consider whether its called for first, then I act. In my opinion, there's been far too much interfering with nature without thought for the consequences.

I've had cause before to act, have done so, and will if needed again. But just as I stopped doing Tarot readings for the just curious/bored and now reserve it for those truly in need ( who are sent to me by God and Goddess) so I would not do magick just to do it. I believe that you don't just put forces in motion just to see them move. Maybe I'm just wierd.

I do rituals, but they are simple kitchen witchy mostly connecting with and celebrating Mom and Dad, the seasons, and to thank Them for everything They've done for me, and to send love healing, and protection to all who have need known to me or not. Ritual is an act of love for me, not an opportunity to play with the universe.

So I call myself a Wiccan Kitchen witch for lack of a better term. I just don't feel that how much or how little magick I do is particularly relevant, likewise my rituals. I'm not big into elaborate ritual. I get more out of going outside with Mom on Esbat night and spending some time with Her, and exchanging a big cosmic I love you and embrace. Thats my religion, and thats my way. The magick is in the love.

If I've misinterpreted your post Lucidfire, sorry, but it seemed pointed at me and somewhat critical, I hope I've at least clarified myself. I WOULD like to know more about the Druid path though so that I might learn from it. If anyone can help or point me in the right direction, I would be grateful.
BB
Raindancer

[eneurian]

in reading this whole thread i find that even though there are some minor contradictions and a little bit of tension (perception)...i think we are all right. i think the actual contradiction is in verbal semantics. i realize that any verbal race or species will have a word for every concept they perceive but i think that the human error is that we have too many words. and every generation feels they have the right to change the meanings of them. in the bigger picture i don't feel we should seperate and label differences in religion, philosophy, science, math, psychology, and a load of other things that we need to use to live correctly everyday. that is the basis of the life that existed before people started labeling everything. the beings that built stonehenge did not seperate and label different cells and sections of their lives. they lived them.
:) e

[Raindancer]

I agree that the problems lie in words. I think its not exactly too many words, but in some cases, not enough words and too many meanings. Not enough subtlety and preciseness of words to explain the nuances of thought behind the words. We are forced to do, in a sense, brain surgery with a kitchen knife.

We all have these non-verbalised concepts bouncing around in our brains, but somehow we first need to try to fit that into the arsenal of words to understand them ourselves. But then we know what we mean even if we can't say it exactly.

Ah, but then we have to bridge the gap of understanding, perception, experience and all the rest between us and someone we may not have even met before, and try to communicate what we have experienced and understood to them. The best we can hope for is that somehow they will have a Satori, and know exactly what you mean. Even then, we won't and can't know if they really did, or thought they did.

Lucidfire and I had an exchange, based on misperception. I'm fairly sure that if you could look at what we really meant, you would find that we are pretty close. In trying to explain that, however, it is so hard to see that, because even with a common language, there are so many possible meanings for the same words (coming from different understandings and experience) so many words with the same meanings, that sometimes its a wonder we can get anything across.

I also agree that a lot of the problem is that we are so used to categorising separating what needs to be looked at as a whole into some kind of psychic/psychologiacl stamp collection. Thats a result of the trend toward standardisation, and scientification of all areas of study, be it psychology, science, Botany, you name it.

Trouble is we aren't categories, we're people, people with the same cussed persistent human nature that has confounded philosophers since the Greeks constructed their "Ideal" societies. They intellectually constructed these perfect ways to live, and didn't take into account that people just aren't that way.

Perhaps there may be use in categorisation in certain areas, but until we learn to find other holistic inclusive ways to understand our lives and the universe we're part of, we may see lots of trees, but we won't see the forest.

Blessings
Raindancer

[Maggie]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As one poster said--the question of 'druid' really comes down to a matter of sematics. I've started a thread before on this topic, asking people what they thought of when they heard the word 'druid'--got a variety of answers. I suspect that if one goes through the druid sites on the web, you'll find way more definitions.........

The problem IS what is the meaning of the word 'druid'. I've said this before--I tend toward the celtic recon viewpoint, especially since I came to this Path through history, in a way. TO ME (TO ME TO ME) the word 'druid' has a very specific meaning. It refers to a function in a celtic society during a specific time period. In this context the druid was the 'top dog' in a group that was responsible for holding the laws, the religion, the healing arts, the bardic arts, etc..........the druid was simply the most educated of the bunch, having attained that position by virtue of rising through all the skills in the arts held within that function. His position within that society was that of religious leader and advisor to the king. Additionally, what people appear to be referring to when they talk about druidism is actually celtic paganism, or the common religion of the society. They were the leaders and the keepers of that religion, not the originators. That religion existed before the function of druid evolved, not the other way around. Calling the religion 'druidism' makes as much sense as calling Christianity 'priestism'. Because of this--MY OPINION HERE--I personally don't believe that anyone can be a druid in the old sense. Modern society has fragmented all those functions of the druid class into separate groups and in America we have separated church and state in a fashion that the old druids probably wouldn't understand nor accept--the function and purpose of 'druid' no longer has a place in our society, never mind the fact that we no longer live in that society. Therefore, I tend to think of myself as a celtic pagan. However, this leads into my second point.............

The word 'druid' has taken on new meanings in modern society. This is perfectly normal, ordinary and has happened from time immemorial. Once a language stops changing, stops being part of a living community, it dies. HOWEVER, this means that there IS NO ONE definition of 'druid' any longer. On this point, because there is none, my own personal philosophy is pretty much 'whatever floats your boat'. There are a couple of points that I do feel need to be considered here. I've noticed a couple of commonalities in most of the druid groups I've seen. One is that the druid religion is nature-based. I don't think that's a good point to base it on because ALL pre-industrial indigenous religions world-wide were nature-based, in a way that was (and is) pretty much the beginning point of any such. Since the term and function of 'druid' was celtic-based, I feel modern groups should at least make an attempt to form a base in that society's world views if they're going to use that word. The second is to make the druid into some sort of mysterious perfectly in tune with the universe and reclusive fount of universal truth. No. No. No. Such inflation distorts the truth about them and their religion in such a way as to make what they did say and did believe and did do almost unrecognizable. IMO, it also dishonors what they actually were and did teach and obscures the fact that they were intimately connected to their community and fully involved in the life of that community. For a good sense of how I see this, I can only recommend books like __The Apple Branch__ and __ReKindling the Celtic Spirit__. Both of them talk about actually incorporating these things into daily life in a non-archaic manner. Another very very good book to illustrate some of these points is __The Celtic Consciousness__ ed. by Robert O'Driscoll. To quote one blurb:

"Immensely detailed, consistantly surprising....a convincing expmaple of the unique qualities of a specifically 'Celtic' consciousness, gathering the riches of diverse, often little known recent research, drawing the participants from many disciplines and several continents...THE CELTIC CONSCIOUSNESS is a supurb celebration of the eternal qualities of that culture, and a statement of faith in its continuing relevance."

This is a collection of essays on subjects ranging from prehistoric to modern times actually talking about what it meant and means to be celtic in today's society. Extremely thought provoking.........

Okay, guys, now let fly!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,

Maggie

[Arak]

Greetings,

Please be advised that the following is only a matter of my opinion and I do not wish to step on toes or discredit someone else's practises...the question was asked and this is my answer.

I follow Druidism as a religion and a way oflife. I do not, however, engage in spellwork or "Magick" as somemight call it. I do perform observances for the feast days and pray/meditate at night before retiring.

I believe the best way to attain anything is to dothe work for it. i.e.: Want a boyfriend? Get dressed up nice and go somewhere where you would like to meet one. Want a job? Get a resume together and pound the pavement.

I have no problem saying a prayer and asking for strength or confidence to assist me, but I do not believe I need to engage in the blatant manipulation of the Universe that I find spellwork to be.

The "magick" or power of the land is always around us and if we are meant to have something, we will have it provided we resolve to do our part of the work to get it. I see so many people that just want to cast spells to get lovers or money without making the effort on their own part tomake the manifestation happen. The power is always available and needs no correspondence to make it work.

In short: the magic is always within me to change my life and I do not need props, theatrics, moon phases or any of that to make it happen. My will/desire/hard work is what makes things happen. I can do all the dancing around under the moon with the coloured candles and fancy robes, but if my will is not there, then I am accomplishing nothing but a waste of my time.

That is my practise. Druidry, Druidism...whatever you want to call it. It is me working with the universe to learn and help myself achieve my goals and help others as well through acts of compassion.

Blessings,
Arak /|\

[Arak]

I just thought I should make something clear here as it has been misconstrued that because I do not engage in spellwork now (or Magick), I never have.

I have had plenty of experience with the practise and used to engage in it often. Not for personal gain as much as health or protection for myself. I found that the practice just is not for me and I did not mean to come across as closed minded or inexperienced.

To each his own, I guess.

My reference to spellsforlove and money come from people I have seen on mailing lists coming on and saying "I like this guy who does not know I exist. Can someone give me a spell I can cast to make him like me?" There are people who really do engage in spellwork with no knowledge of it for just these "silly" reasons because they have been led to believe that this is what Paganism is all about.

Just thought I'd clear that up in case there was doubt.

Peace and blessings,
Arak /|\

[Raindancer]

Reading Lucidfire, and Arak's posts, between the three of us, I don't think we've said much thats different from each other. As I said before, and will say again in a somewhat different way... Magick ( to me) is something that is best used, if at all, with discretion.

When you are manipulating energies toward an end, its best to ensure as much as possible that that end is worth it, and that the means to that end cause as little disruption as possible. As Arak said, or I think would say, if its something that should happen, it will. If not, then either it shouldn't, or it isn't ready yet.

Meanwhile, make yourself ready when the time comes. Too much use of magick to create an end, IMO, is only trying to force a square peg into a round hole. Metaphorically speaking, use it as a seasoning to enhance what is already there, not as a main course.

Also, IMO, too many people use Witchcraft as a means to bolster a sagging ego, a mega-power trip, not a pathway to harmony with the rest of the universe. Harmony means singing in tune with, not shouting over the choir. Thems hard words, but to my way of thinking, true ones.

Maggie said some things that made me think ( In case you thought I didn't notice you Maggiie *G* ) But today's a busy day, and I'll have to get back to it later on.... meanwhile, Blessings and light to all... Raindancer

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Draeconin


Insofar as I'm concerned, "druidism" isn't a proper word at all - in fact, I'm rather affronted by its use.

I feel just the opposite.
Druidism is the religion of the Druids.
At best Druidry could be a term reffering to the study of those beliefs (as done by a non druid).
One of my pet peeves is people who call my religion Druidry, after all we don't talk about Hindudry, Buddadry, Pagandry, or Catholocdry.
Druidic means being from the pratice of Druidism.

As far as magic goes, it depends on how you view magic.
I don't do much in the way of ritual, but live my life in what could be considered a "magical way".

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid


I feel just the opposite.
Druidism is the religion of the Druids.

That would be fine, if we actually knew what that religion was or, indeed, what druids were. But when we speak of the religion of the druids, what we are truly speaking about is the religion of the Celtic peoples. Not all Celts were druids.

And it is beginning to look as though not all druids were priests. In some quarters, it is beginning to be thought that "druid" was a social class of intelligentsia: Including priests, but also healers, judges, lawyers, etc.

[eneurian]

dear dear lucidfire...wow what a great huge lot of truth and understanding you managed to stuff into that message. i am truly impressed. (i know you don't know me but i'm not easily impressed) i have been trying to explain these concepts this well most of my life.
i am stunned in a most wonderful way. thank you. :)e

[lucidfire]

:loveduv:

[Raindancer]

What Maggie's post, and others made me wonder was if we should even be attempting to recreate a way of life, a definition of which we can't even nail down. Draw upon for wisdom, and learn from them, but recreate? Why?

I think that there's this feeling that unless a religion can trace its roots back into the mists of time, that its somehow less valid. I fail to understand why we need to worry about that. Why should we look to others to validate our personal beliefs, when ultimately, it should come from within?

What difference does it make what our ancestors did thousands of years ago, except as a source of insight and knowledge? What really matters is if, as Maggie says, it floats our boat. Historical re- creation is fine as a tool for learning how things were done long ago, but playing ancient Egyptian, or Celt, or whatever while a possibly fun and rewarding hobby, isn't a really substantial religion.

Lucidfire used the word "connection" in relation to magick, connection is a great word, because thats what ( IMO) religion is or should be about: connection of humans to the divine as they see it. Two spirits touching. It doesn't matter if its in a way that was done 40,000 years ago, or something that came to you in a dream last night, if the connection is made, its made. At one time or other, every now-ancient belief was new.

Rather than try to recreate an ancient way armed with a handful of facts and a wheelbarrow full of guesses, in search of some kind of claim to validity because, so we say, its how things were done then, I think that we should focus on what the real heart of what we do is, and not get bogged down in semantics and loaded words and terms that are often at best half understood.

Forget about whether the sociiety at large will be impressed because you tell them that your way has an impeccable pedigree based on solid historical research and known fact. Who cares? Does is resonate with your being? Does following it make it possible to connect with the infinite? In short, does it work?

We have an opportunity to create something new that works here and now, aided and abetted by the past, but relevant for now. I think that perhaps rather than get mired in the quagmire of using names and lables that mean many things to many people, and only serve to confuse everyone, we might consider creating new words to describe various paths.

Clearly, Druids of today will be much different than Druids of Caesar's time, they should be known by a different name to avoid confusion. As it is, how many people can explain clearly what the difference is between a Druid, Greenwitch, Hedge Witch, Strega, etc. aside from their Celticness? Maybe its better to start from scratch, or forget about lables altogether.

Its late here...
Blessings
Raindancer

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Draeconin


That would be fine, if we actually knew what that religion was or, indeed, what druids were. But when we speak of the religion of the druids, what we are truly speaking about is the religion of the Celtic peoples. Not all Celts were druids.

And it is beginning to look as though not all druids were priests. In some quarters, it is beginning to be thought that "druid" was a social class of intelligentsia: Including priests, but also healers, judges, lawyers, etc.

While Druids were/are part of the intelligentsia, the term Druid did not include all of the intelligentsia.

Take a look at how someone became/becomes a traditional Druid.
First you had to study to become a Bard.

A Bard not only entertained, but also passed on information by composing songs and poems about the news. That made the news and history much easier to remember.
They were the entertainers, press, and historians.

Next they would study to become an Ovate.
In this stage they would learn about medicine, law, and spirituallity.

Only after mastering the 2 prior stages could one start learning what is needed to be a full fledged Druid.

This shows not only that Druids were among the intelligentsia, but why.

I agree that not all Celts were Druids, but then not all Catholics are priest.
However all Druids were priest, although the functions that a Druid performed go far beyond what is usually considered the domain of priest today.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid


While Druids were/are part of the intelligentsia, the term Druid did not include all of the intelligentsia.

Take a look at how someone became/becomes a traditional Druid.
First you had to study to become a Bard.

Next they would study to become an Ovate.

I'd be very interested in where you got your information as to how the ancients studied or what they studied. So far I have been unable to find anything so definite in the sociological, historical or archeological records I've been able to find.



I agree that not all Celts were Druids, but then not all Catholics are priest.


Which was my point. You don't name a religion after its priests. Therefore it wouldn't be "Druidism" but "the Celtic religion". They *may* have had a name for their religion, but it's more likely that they called themselves "followers of (the local god/dess)".

[lucidfire]

I know those titles he mentioned are correct, I believe there are a few ranks over that too. I merely received the information word of mouth, which is probably the only DEFINATE way to be sure of what they studied (the how is proably more relative). There's a few druidic websites out there that may help you too.

Here's one that might help Druidways (http://www.druidways.co.uk/)

This one has a little more info British Druid Order (http://www.witchvox.com/trads/trad_bdo.html)

[Arak]

I too would be interested in hearing about the "Grades of of the Druid caste".

In ten years of study, I have read that the "trades" of Ovate or Filidh (Healer, sacrificer, communer with the Otherworld, etc.), Bard (Historian, Musician, "reporter", etc.), Brehon (Lawmaker) and Druid (Teacher, advisor, etc.) were all separate but equal in status among the learned class,much like a lawyer, a doctor and a teacher are in today's society,rather than just grades towards a higher goal.

In my opinion, that would be like saying one had to go through the grades of reporter, lawyer, and doctor to become a teacher. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

I know that many of the modern schools of Druidism (Druidry or Celtic religion...or whatever the term of the day is...I am kidding here) use "Bard", "Ovate" and "Druid" as grades towards the higher goal as there is no"druid class"in our socuety as their was in our ancestors', but I honestly do believe that the "Druids" were the learned class in Celtic Society...the scholars and professionals so to speak.

The learned class in our modern society can include doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, religious leaders (priests,etc that have been trained in seminaries and such), etc.

It is possible that in a society like that of the Celts,where religion was an integral part of everyday life and everyone did their work in the name of culture and spirituality, the learned class was similar to ours. Different professions such as the doctors,lawyers, scientists, priests et al, working together with a common cause: to serve the community and the Gods...and not grades towards the higher goal at all.

Just my two cents to the dollar.

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Draeconin


I'd be very interested in where you got your information as to how the ancients studied or what they studied. So far I have been unable to find anything so definite in the sociological, historical or archeological records I've been able to find.


I know because this is the way I was trained, and my research into the legands, as well as my discussions with other heridatary Druids (some of them not of my lineage) bear this out.

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Arak


In my opinion, that would be like saying one had to go through the grades of reporter, lawyer, and doctor to become a teacher. It does not make a whole lot of sense to me.



In modern analogs it is much more like someone having to study law, pratice as a lawyer, and then be a judge for several years before being qualified to be a supreme court justice.

That is why traditionally, training as a Druid takes 20 years or more.

If you look at what we know of the ancient Celtic cultures, most of them displayed their ranks by the number of colors they were allowed to wear.

A king was allowed to wear all seven colors, a Druid was also allowed to wear all seven primary collors, with the addition of white (to represent the spirit, or ancestorial, realm).

Once again this is why Druids were often advisors to the King.
The first stage was to teach the initiate history and law as well as the poetic techniques needed to memorise and pass on law and history.
After all, history is intrensic to the concepts of Brehon law (as well as modern common law). In fact that is one of the main differances between English law and ancient Roman law.
(Engilsh law is based on presidence, while ancient Roman law , as well as American law is based on leglislation and interpatation.)

In the next stage concitrated on the spiritual arts of meditation, divination, herbalism and healing.
This confuses many modern students, since today most people don't consider herbalism and healing to be spiritual arts.
However in period times herbal (as well as other ) cures were thought of as a spiritual process, not a chemical one.

The result of this training gave the Druid knowladge that was invaulable to the King.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by Arak
...I have read that the "trades" of Ovate or Filidh (Healer, sacrificer, communer with the Otherworld, etc.), Bard (Historian, Musician, "reporter", etc.), Brehon (Lawmaker) and Druid (Teacher, advisor, etc.) were all separate but equal in status among the learned class,much like a lawyer, a doctor and a teacher are in today's society,rather than just grades towards a higher goal.

Exactly. :)

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid


I know because this is the way I was trained, and my research into the legands, as well as my discussions with other heridatary Druids (some of them not of my lineage) bear this out.

I'm sorry, but knowing peoples propensity for filling in the holes (and my own tradition did too much of that), I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. I'd prefer more solid evidence.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid

In modern analogs it is much more like someone having to study law, pratice as a lawyer, and then be a judge for several years before being qualified to be a supreme court justice.

That is why traditionally, training as a Druid takes 20 years or more.

How long does it take for a modern person to go through the school system - K-college? Seventeen years. And that's with 9 months out of the year devoted to study - over 300 hours per year (including homework time). The Celts didn't have that luxury. They also had to provide for feeding themselves, caring for food animals, upkeep of living quarters, etc.

Twenty years of study sounds like a very long time, until you take that into consideration.

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Draeconin


How long does it take for a modern person to go through the school system - K-college? Seventeen years. And that's with 9 months out of the year devoted to study - over 300 hours per year (including homework time). The Celts didn't have that luxury. They also had to provide for feeding themselves, caring for food animals, upkeep of living quarters, etc.

Twenty years of study sounds like a very long time, until you take that into consideration.

You seem to be drawing parallels that just aren't there.
First of all the system of schooling was quite differant.
One didn't become an asperant (someone who chose to start the training) until they had undergone the first cycle of life (about 14 -16 years of age, ie became an young adult, or youth by period standards). Before that their education was determined by their place in scociety, and their parents trade.

In other words there was very little primary education in the way that we think of it, thus the need for the Bardic phase of education.
For instance there was very little in the way of reading and wrighting, as they were studying under an oral tradition.

As far as providing for feeding themselves caring for food animals, and upkeep of living quarters; much of this did not apply directly to them as most of them attended a Druidic Collage that was supported by the nobelity.
Much as a Jewler didn't raise sheep, the members of the Druidic class didn't raise their own livestock, or tend feilds of grain.
These needs were taken care of by the nobility and the villages that the Druids served.

[CromanMacNessa]

Originally posted by Draeconin


How long does it take for a modern person to go through the school system - K-college? Seventeen years. And that's with 9 months out of the year devoted to study - over 300 hours per year (including homework time). The Celts didn't have that luxury. They also had to provide for feeding themselves, caring for food animals, upkeep of living quarters, etc.

Twenty years of study sounds like a very long time, until you take that into consideration.

/|\
All,

I'm new here, one of The Fluid Druid's Ordainees. I'm 36, have a BA in Philosophy, am a Member of both the Henge of Keltria and the Order of Whiteoak, a Druid of the Dragon Clan, and the Chief Druid of the Clann Nessa. I've been studying various traditions since 1978, always with the idea of my Celtic Ancestors treasured in my heart.

Though The Fluid Druid did contribute to my training, I must say that I disagree with him on the point of Bard and Ovate being stages on the way to Druid. In my own research, both the Classical and Irish texts speak of there being THREE divisions among the Aos Dána, and certainly seems to imply that they are distinct Vocations. Of course, the Druid would have to know quite a bit about the other two Vocations, in order to fulfill the responsibilities of his/her own.

However, this contemporary tendency in our *specialised* society to project that specialisation back onto a *Tribal* society just doesn't fly. Certainly The Fluid Druid is correct that the Druidic Aspirants did not start off their Training at age 4 or 5, but only after they were more mature and had the basics out of the way.

Draeconin seems to be unaware of the fact that Druids and Aspirants to their ranks were not required to provide for themselves. The Clann did that for them. New Age fears of paid clergy notwithstanding, our Ancestors had no such qualms about providing for those who provided for them. They could thus spend almost all of their time in that 20 year period studying what they were supposed to study. By years alone that's 4 Ph.D.s --- 4 years for a Bachelor's, 2 for a Master's, 2 for another Master's, 2 for another, 2 for another, 2 for a Doctorate, 2 for another Doctorate, 2 for another, and 2 for another. That's 20 years. *Four* Doctorates. Now, in light of this, the multiple roles of an ancient Druid aren't that incredible, are they?

A very good book, by Peter Berresford Ellis, called "The Druids," is one that might help put some of this in perspective. Though Ellis himself argues that Bard and Druid were identical, still, the texts of both the Classical writers and the Irish claim there were three different groups within the Aos Dána, and this THREE is perfectly consistent with the "Trinary Logic" or "Triadic Wisdom" of the Celtic cultures.

You might also see in this connection my lecture on the Role of the Druids at:

http://communities.msn.com/CromansGrove&naventryid=173

[thefluiddruid]

Croman,
Welcome, I'm glad that you chose to take time out of your busy schedule to stop in and check out this forum.
There is alot of great people posting here, as well as many good subjects being debated!!

[CromanMacNessa]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid
Croman,
Welcome, I'm glad that you chose to take time out of your busy schedule to stop in and check out this forum.
There is alot of great people posting here, as well as many good subjects being debated!!


/|\
Fluid Druid,

Móran tàing for the welcome, mo Bhràthair. And yes, the schedule is getting even busier. ::chuckles:: However, I'll stop in periodically to check the board for other topics of interest.

Beannachd Nessa leibh,

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid


You seem to be drawing parallels that just aren't there.
First of all the system of schooling was quite differant.
One didn't become an asperant (someone who chose to start the training) until they had undergone the first cycle of life (about 14 -16 years of age, ie became an young adult, or youth by period standards). Before that their education was determined by their place in scociety, and their parents trade.

In other words there was very little primary education in the way that we think of it, thus the need for the Bardic phase of education.
For instance there was very little in the way of reading and wrighting, as they were studying under an oral tradition.

Sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean to draw an *exact* parallel. Regardless of the age that one started their learning (and I was under the impression that it was around age 10 at earliest), the applicant would have to learn reading, writing, history (both general and family specific), some amount of herbology, some amount of law, astrology, etc. (a loose approximation of k-12) At some point the student would choose to specialize in one area or another ("college"). That time, in total, would equal approximately 20 years (Btw, while I have heard that number bruited about, I have yet to see hard proof of it.)


As far as providing for feeding themselves caring for food animals, and upkeep of living quarters; much of this did not apply directly to them as most of them attended a Druidic Collage that was supported by the nobelity.
Much as a Jewler didn't raise sheep, the members of the Druidic class didn't raise their own livestock, or tend feilds of grain.
These needs were taken care of by the nobility and the villages that the Druids served.

You have sources for that? I don't doubt its possibility, but I don't see it as a probability. It just doesn't fit with the mindset I have come to know, that *any* citizen would be allowed a complete life of ease. Physical fitness was much prized.

[eneurian]

as in the old traditions i have inherited teachings verbally so i cannot give a footnote or bibliography for the information however...it has been told to me that a druid of any rank was entitled to food and shelter wherever he went. this was not a free offerring to a religious personage. it was in exchange for use of the druids knowledge. anyone in the household who was unwell rightly expected medicines, those seeking charms were served, and this is probably the true origin of 'singing for your supper'. bards were the basic form of communication. they brought news and were also expected to carry it on, as well as entertain in the process. neither were these weak, bookish men, they had to fend for themselves between villages and keeps. they also pitched in physically in the work of the local as long as they bode there.

on a slightly different tack i have a problem with the concept of 'religion'. i accept that this is a matter of semantics again but i don't feel that most of the teachings we receive are 'religious' in nature. i perceive 'religion' as something outside of the natural order of life the universe and everything. i despise the word itself because of what it means to so many and the horror it has cast upon the world.

sorry, off the soapbox now...

sheepishly :) e

[Maggie]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raindancer
What Maggie's post, and others made me wonder was if we should even be attempting to recreate a way of life, a definition of which we can't even nail down. Draw upon for wisdom, and learn from them, but recreate? Why?

Well, in my case I guess I didn't communicate what I meant to say. I'm not attempting to recreate the old ways of living, but to live with a religion that speaks to me. Many other religions have changed and grown along with the people and culture who follow them. Christianity has done so, but I think a first century Christian and a contemporary one would still find points of doctrine and practice in common. To do that for celtic paganism for me I have to understand what was going on, how these people viewed their religion and practiced it, and to the best of my ability, understand what they believed.



Ithink that there's this feeling that unless a religion can trace its roots back into the mists of time, that its somehow less valid. I fail to understand why we need to worry about that. Why should we look to others to validate our personal beliefs, when ultimately, it should come from within?

All religions are new at some time, my point here is that I'm not attempting to recreate anything, simply learn to practice the old ways in my modern life. It isn't a validation, I'm simply trying to find the ruts already worn in the road I want, rather than make new ones going in another direction.

What difference does it make what our ancestors did thousands of years ago, except as a source of insight and knowledge? What really matters is if, as Maggie says, it floats our boat. Historical re- creation is fine as a tool for learning how things were done long ago, but playing ancient Egyptian, or Celt, or whatever while a possibly fun and rewarding hobby, isn't a really substantial religion.

It doesn't make any difference what was done anytime ago--unless one is looking to continue the religion that was practiced thousands of years ago--or 100. There is no point in calling it by an old name if one isn't concerned with practicing the old ways that go with that name. In that case, give it a new one and go on.

Lucidfire used the word "connection" in relation to magick, connection is a great word, because thats what ( IMO) religion is or should be about: connection of humans to the divine as they see it. Two spirits touching. It doesn't matter if its in a way that was done 40,000 years ago, or something that came to you in a dream last night, if the connection is made, its made. At one time or other, every now-ancient belief was new.

Again, agreed that at one time all beliefs were new. That actually isn't the point of what I attempted to say. The God/desses of each and every culture represent a way of thinking, reflect a particular world view, and their worship/relationship/ with their people have a structure that reflects that. I would no sooner 're-write' a celtic ritual for Brighid to call upon Kali or Isis than I would run naked at noon through town. If one wants to call upon Kali or Isis than they deserve (and probably will demand, be warned!) a ritual that reflects the religion and beliefs of their people.


Rather than try to recreate an ancient way armed with a handful of facts and a wheelbarrow full of guesses, in search of some kind of claim to validity because, so we say, its how things were done then, I think that we should focus on what the real heart of what we do is, and not get bogged down in semantics and loaded words and terms that are often at best half understood.

There are more than a handful of facts in some matters. There is in fact a genuine claim to validity of practice based on those facts. Beltaine, Samhain, Imbolc and Lughannasah are celebrated based on the fact that these festivals were in fact important to the celtic peoples and were celebrated at particular times for particular reasons. The ritual is bound up with belief and purpose, to ignore those renders ritual meaningless. As I said, there is no law that anyone has to follow this--if a person doesn't want to, simply find another name and continue on.

Forget about whether the sociiety at large will be impressed because you tell them that your way has an impeccable pedigree based on solid historical research and known fact. Who cares? Does is resonate with your being? Does following it make it possible to connect with the infinite? In short, does it work?

Frankly, I don't care what society at large has to say. If I want to 'impress' them I'll go the living history route and do some spindle spinning at a recreation weekend. Again, that isn't the point. The point is whether or not I am being as true as I can to the way I intend to follow. In this case there are specifics known about what the celts believed. If I didn't share those beliefs, I wouldn't bother with celtic paganism. The celts didn't believe in a 'connection with the infinite', that's another path entirely.

We have an opportunity to create something new that works here and now, aided and abetted by the past, but relevant for now. I think that perhaps rather than get mired in the quagmire of using names and lables that mean many things to many people, and only serve to confuse everyone, we might consider creating new words to describe various paths.

Exactly so.



Clearly, Druids of today will be much different than Druids of Caesar's time, they should be known by a different name to avoid confusion. As it is, how many people can explain clearly what the difference is between a Druid, Greenwitch, Hedge Witch, Strega, etc. aside from their Celticness? Maybe its better to start from scratch, or forget about lables altogether.

Druids are celtic, I have no idea what people consider a greenwith to be, hedge witch seems to be an informal magician--probably the village 'wise woman' in years past who did a brisk business in charms and herbs and can be found in just about any culture. Strega is NOT celtic, it's Italian.


Regards,

Maggie

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by eneurian
...it has been told to me that a druid of any rank was entitled to food and shelter wherever he went. this was not a free offerring to a religious personage. it was in exchange for use of the druids knowledge. anyone in the household who was unwell rightly expected medicines, those seeking charms were served, and this is probably the true origin of 'singing for your supper'. .......... neither were these weak, bookish men, they had to fend for themselves between villages and keeps. they also pitched in physically in the work of the local as long as they bode there.


This pretty much agrees with what I was taught, once again in a verbal tradition.
When I talk about the Druidic collage being supported by the King, nobility, or surrounding villages, I am not saying that the students sat on their butts and read books.

Once again traditional Druidism is an oral tradition.
This means that the students learned by being told the material over and over until they could repeat it.
Much of the information was pratical stuff such as Herbalism, in which case they learned about it by walking in nature and being shown the herbs and taught how to use them by pratical example.

These weren't weak, bookish types, but strong vital folks, who spent much of their time in nature.
They did have to defend themselves occaisionally, however it was a MAJOR offense to attack one outside of the context of war.

One of the common mistakes that many people make when discussing Druids, or any facet of Celtic culture is assuming that it has the same concepts and values that we have now.

For instance the ultimate insult to a Celt was to say he was "niggardly" (this term had nothing to do with skin color or race, but instead meant selfish).
At that time a persons material worth was determined not byy how much they had, but by how generious they were in gifting.

Then you have the concept of "guest right".
It was common in mant of the Celtic cultures for a traveler to visit a strangers farm or home and claim guest right, under which they would recieve food and shelter overnight in return for news, entertainment, or help with the daily chores.

Some concepts changed depending on which time and culture you are looking at.
For instance the concept of linage and inheritance.
The Goidelic, or "old" tribes did not recognise physical fatherhood, and inherited from their mothers side of the family, while the Brythonic or "new" tribes did believe in the concept of physical fatherhood, and inherited through a paternal lineage.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by eneurian
however...it has been told to me that a druid of any rank was entitled to food and shelter wherever he went. this was not a free offerring to a religious personage. it was in exchange for use of the druids knowledge.

And quite rightly so. However, I was speaking of the training period in the collegium, when the students *were* just students and had little to no knowledge or skills to offer.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid

Once again traditional Druidism is an oral tradition.

In the main, yes. But that people *did* know writing, and logic dictates that they would have made use of it. After the Romans and Christians were through with the area (not to mention over 1500 years of mouldering and weathering), it's no wonder that there is nothing left of those writings, however. The one College that I know has any surviving walls was defaced and turned into a Christian church. Even so, it is only ruins, now.



Much of the information was pratical stuff such as Herbalism, in which case they learned about it by walking in nature and being shown the herbs and taught how to use them by pratical example.

These weren't weak, bookish types, but strong vital folks, who spent much of their time in nature.
They did have to defend themselves occaisionally, however it was a MAJOR offense to attack one outside of the context of war.

To kill a bard was, apparently, a death offense at *any* time. Greek records state that a bard could walk unarmed through a melee and remain unharmed. The only mention I've ever heard of druids being actively involved in battle was with the Romans. They would, I presume, have been trained in self-defense, of course. They *were* a war-like people.


One of the common mistakes that many people make when discussing Druids, or any facet of Celtic culture is assuming that it has the same concepts and values that we have now.

SO true!



Then you have the concept of "guest right".
It was common in mant of the Celtic cultures for a traveler to visit a strangers farm or home and claim guest right, under which they would recieve food and shelter overnight in return for news, entertainment, or help with the daily chores.

And anyone denying guest right became an object of scorn - and if important enough, the object of a bard's song of ridicule.

[CromanMacNessa]

Originally posted by CromanMacNessa



Though The Fluid Druid did contribute to my training, I must say that I disagree with him on the point of Bard and Ovate being stages on the way to Druid. In my own research, both the Classical and Irish texts speak of there being THREE divisions among the Aos Dána, and certainly seems to imply that they are distinct Vocations. Of course, the Druid would have to know quite a bit about the other two Vocations, in order to fulfill the responsibilities of his/her own.

However, this contemporary tendency in our *specialised* society to project that specialisation back onto a *Tribal* society just doesn't fly. Certainly The Fluid Druid is correct that the Druidic Aspirants did not start off their Training at age 4 or 5, but only after they were more mature and had the basics out of the way.

A very good book, by Peter Berresford Ellis, called "The Druids," is one that might help put some of this in perspective. Though Ellis himself argues that Bard and Druid were identical, still, the texts of both the Classical writers and the Irish claim there were three different groups within the Aos Dána, and this THREE is perfectly consistent with the "Trinary Logic" or "Triadic Wisdom" of the Celtic cultures.

You might also see in this connection my lecture on the Role of the Druids at:

http://communities.msn.com/CromansGrove&naventryid=173


/|\
All,

I must take back my assertion that a Druid does not go through the training of a Fáith and then that of an Ollamh before entering upon the training of a Drùidh. While I still maintain that these are three distinct Callings or Vocations, I did not look closely enough at what the Fluid Druid was saying. In fact, the 7 years of a Seer's training and then 5 more for Bardic training would be followed by 8 more years of Druidic training. Nevertheless, someone who is "merely" a Seer is not "less" than someone who is a Druid. They are separate Vocations. As I suggested previously, however, the Druid needs the training of a Seer and that of a Bard in order to properly fulfill his/her responsibilities. While it would seem that Bardic training should come first for a variety of reasons, in the Clann Nessa, we start with the Seer's training and then move to that of Bard, due to the time involved. I should also point out that, due to the interwoven nature of the Celtic triadic wisdom, the Seer does not study only such things as fall under the "category" of the Cauldron of Land, but that would be the Focus of the Seer's training. That said, I bid you all Walk With Wisdom.

Beannachd Nessa leibh,

[xjsjaglvr]

As folk like Twig will tell you or anyone else that has known me for sometime might tell you Jag is a Druid; not a religion, a title! What is the name of the path we follow? Well I am not really sure, in fact I doubt anyone truly knows. I cringe anytime someone tells me they practise Druidry. As for magic, etc. I do not practise magic. ceremony or such, neither do I wear long dark robes or carry a staff. We do know this much about those who were Druids (again the title) they dressed in the clothing of the day. So for me now that means jeans. I teach, advise and write stories to instill the basic values we follow. It is interesting to note that the values and beliefs we follow are basically the same across most cultures and time (universal truths?). Another reason I neither wear long robes or perform ceremony is that in large gatherings where the mainstream media show up the reporters usually find the most bizarre individual they can (a seemingly sixth sense) to interview, usually making us look like a bunch of kooks. ( "I am the third degree high arch-druid of Alveron and am waiting for the space aliens to land at the Giza Pyramids to reclaim Atlantis"), that sort of thing.

[thefluiddruid]

Originally posted by Draeconin


In the main, yes. But that people *did* know writing, and logic dictates that they would have made use of it.


Actually Wrighting, in the sense of lititure was unknown to most of the Celts in the British Isles until the Romans invaded.
In fact it has been discovered that the Ogham was first used in Ireland, and was brought to Britan by the Scotti.

[i]

The only mention I've ever heard of druids being actively involved in battle was with the Romans. They would, I presume, have been trained in self-defense, of course. They *were* a war-like people.



I have seen a few referances to Druids being involved in battles between Celtic Tribes.
A classic example is the "Cattle Raid of Cooley".
This story includes a battle between 2 tribes (or small nations) with a Druid on each side providing "magical" support.

[Draeconin]

Originally posted by thefluiddruid


I have seen a few referances to Druids being involved in battles between Celtic Tribes.
A classic example is the "Cattle Raid of Cooley".
This story includes a battle between 2 tribes (or small nations) with a Druid on each side providing "magical" support.

Yes, but I said "actively" - meaning they, themselves, wielding weapons.

I'll have to do more research on the writing history - Ogham was not the only script available. But literature? I was thinking of records.