Cult of the Celt

[emotional]

In my pagan days, when I was getting tired of Wicca, and just before deciding on the Roman goddess Venus, I made a query for advice which pantheon to choose. A response I got was that the Celtic gods are very popular nowadays.

A few questions upon recalling the issue:

1. Is it true that the Celtic gods are very popular nowadays?

2. Why are the Celtic gods very popular nowadays? What's so attractive about Celtic lore?

3. How much can Neocelts (Celtic Reconstructionist pagans) build, as the surviving material about ancient Celtic religion is so small?

I'm not searching now (I'm a monotheist), I'm just curious.

[triplew00t]

I studied Celticism a little not long ago. I think its most liked because so little is known. That allows people to fill in the blanks without anyone saying "you cant believe that and be a Celt! They didnt believe that". Most of the Neocelts that I know are not reconstructionalist at all, and simply steal the label. Maybe there are some out there, but as far as I am concerned, there is not enough information on them left to create an accurate religion that covers all areas such as the Greek, Roman, Norse, Egyptian, Chinese, Shinto, Indian, etc. do. These other religions were all recorded at least to some extent, and for the most part in great deals (except the Norse and Egyptian) in written form, where as the Celts, while having a written language, considered that recording their language in written form (ironically) submitted it to the profane ambiguities of memory. Dont ask me why, seems backwards to me. I imagine it was the whole "multiple interpretations" issue, so they only learned their religion from other people, such as a successive line of Druidic preists. But, then again, this is speculation, as there is very little written to say one way or the other. But its my best guess.

Nero

[andy_d]

These days historians and archaeologists are very nervous about the term "celt" in general.

Having reevaluated the evidence, it seems that the idea that there was a single culture across Europe at the time is in fact incorrect. What we think of as "the celts" were in fact a number of largely unrelated cultures. It seems "the celts" are more a construction of 19th century romanticism than an actual people. As for the druids, we know almost nothing, and are left only with a bunch of ridiculous fabrications and speculation. The actual historical and archaeological record doesn't really tell us a damn thing about what the druids were about.

So basically saying "the celts did this" or "the celts believed that" is a bit of a dodgy endeavour.

[emotional]

Originally posted by andy_d
It seems "the celts" are more a construction of 19th century romanticism than an actual people.

Aha! That's the meat of my question. Why is Celtic culture so romanticised, as opposed to, say, Greek or Roman or Norse paganism? What's the attraction of the Celts, imagined or otherwise? Why are there so many Neocelts, Celtic Druids and Celtic "Warriors" on the 'Net nowadays? Has Xena anything to do with it? Or environmentalism (the "back to nature" craze)? Or is it part of the New Age passion for native, unadultered cultures?

[Donnmathan]

Perhaps what little is known of their true culture and mystic beliefs made it easy to attach the nature-based magic system most Neo's seem to like to them? If one looks at the magic and/or ritual most modern celtic-based pagans use, one can see the influence of a great many other religions and magical traditions - Roman, Egyptian, Greek (strongly), and some Hindu and Oriental. They follow the gods and religious calander (as much of it as is known) of the celts, but then cherry-picked from the others to suit their tastes.

Guess the bottom line is (to paraphrase triplew00t) it allowed them to make of their religion what they wished.

[Sarpedon]

I recall reading that the poem Eenie-meeny-miney-moe began as a druid chant that they used to select a sacrificial victim, to be taken to an island to be killed (the island was called Eane)

There is also the charming custom of the Wicker Man, where a large manikin is made from wood and wicker, human beings are shoved inside, and the whole is burned. There is a very good movie out by that title. (The Wicker Man)

[emotional]

Originally posted by Sarpedon
There is also the charming custom of the Wicker Man, where a large manikin is made from wood and wicker, human beings are shoved inside, and the whole is burned.


Human beings are burnt, and you call it charming? What then shall we say of the god of the Bible?


There is a very good movie out by that title. (The Wicker Man)

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've read a lot about it.

Ancestral Ambivalence: A Pagan Retrospective on The Wicker Man (http://www.egenterprises.net/asphodel/articles/ancestral_ambivalence.html)

[triplew00t]

I can promise you that he calling the custom charming was the utmost in sarcasm.

Nero

[emotional]

My apologies, I misinterpreted.

[lpetrich]

On the subject of Druid human sacrifice, my favorite story about that is that they believed in it enough to be willing to sacrifice one of their own number.

When they were losing badly to the Romans, some Druids in England grew desperate and decided to offer one of their number to their deities. So they did a version of drawing straws; they baked a big sort-of cookie with one part of it burned, then cut up that cookie and put the parts into a bag. The one who drew the burnt part was the one who was sacrificed.

This is reconstructed from the body of someone found in Lindow Moss, England; someone who had been executed in three ways: clubbed, garroted, and bled to death. For more, see the book "The Life and Death of a Druid Prince".

Also, the Druids would memorize a large body of lore; they were opposed to writing it down, which is why most of it is now lost.

[Anti-Creedance Front]

It might be just me, but don't you have to be in a Celtic bloodline to be a Celt? I'm kind of insulted seeing "neo-pagans" interchange cultural gods. The thing that's beautiful about heritage is that you can't fake it, you either are or you aren't, and you should have pride in your own.

[emotional]

Originally posted by Anti-Creedance Front
It might be just me, but don't you have to be in a Celtic bloodline to be a Celt?


To be a Celt, yes. To practice Celtic Paganism, no. Anyone can worship anyone else's gods.

See also the Celtic Pagan FAQ (http://www.celticcallings.com/resources/celtic_traditions/celtic_pagan_faq.htm).


I'm kind of insulted seeing "neo-pagans" interchange cultural gods.


What's wrong about that? As long as the gods are worshipped as they were supposed to be, there's nothing wrong with god-mixing. Though it helps to be focussed on one pantheon.

Actually even on my point "as they were supposed to be" there is disagreement (http://www.dreamsmith.org/rants/tradpagan.shtml).


The thing that's beautiful about heritage is that you can't fake it, you either are or you aren't, and you should have pride in your own.

Heritage is a chance factor, beyond one's control. What if you don't like the gods of your heritage? What if you're a Swede who likes the Celtic pantheon rather than the Norse gods? There shouldn't be any taboo against worshipping a different pantheon.

[Aquila ka Hecate]

The thing that's beautiful about heritage is that you can't fake it, you either are or you aren't, and you should have pride in your own.


Ya, this is going to be difficult for me, then.

My mother was Welsh and German and my Dad was a Scot.

You should understand the possible list of contraditory names and functions inherent in my heritage!

But it's a relevant point nonetheless-which heritage?

:D

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Anti-Creedance Front
It might be just me, but don't you have to be in a Celtic bloodline to be a Celt?

So that would be pretty much everybody who can trace their ancestry back to Europe then.

The supposed "Celts" were peoples who lived thousands of years ago. Their blood would have diffused to the point that the idea of a "celtic bloodline" is meaningless. Trying to eqaute it to modern nationality would be even more so, since the nations of Europe are arbitrary political constructions.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

It could be that the popularity of Celtic deities in Neopaganism is an artifact of Wicca.

There was some stuff written by a Margaret Murray called "The Witch Cult in Western Europe" which alleged that witches burnt in the "burning times" were worshipping the horned god Cernunnos and that they were really practicing a genuine and unbroken Druidic/Celtic lineage.

Gerald Gardner got hold of the idea and took it to Aleister Crowley and suggested that he (Gardner) was going to start up a "witchcraft" movement.

Crowley thought that the idea of nice simple paganism for nice simple people - whose brains would be overtaxed by the philosophical complexities of Kabbalah, NeoPlatonism and Hermeticism - would be good, would diminish Christianity's power base.

Naturally anyone with talent would be provided with the chance to join a "genuine" order and practice "high magick".

Naturally enough, the forty or so pounds sterling that Gardner offered him to write the first Book of Shadows did not enter into the equation in any way at all.

So he did, Gardner started his movement, Sanders jumped on the bandwagon and styled himself "King of the Witches".

It readily became apparent that anyone can get a Book of Shadows (or write one), make it up as you go along, recruit some wannabes, indulge in histrionics and impress yourself with yourself.

It becomes popular and romanticized because people are already doing it, it's quick and easy, it's a very big bandwagon with comfy seats and there's no one to really test you.

You get to be an instant high priest/ess and you get to give yourself a grandiose title such as "Lord Ravenfox" or "Lady Supreme Finkelstein" and no one has the guts to confront you about your hollow and puerile pomposity because if they do, you can confront them about theirs.

I'm absolutely positive that in many cases my theory here is correct but I sincerely hope that it doesn't apply to absolutely everyone who has a liking for Celtic deities and I'm sure there are some decent, down to earth and unpretentious practitioners/worshippers in the movement.

[triplew00t]

Very good summery Conrad. I am impressed. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more on the history of Crowley and Gardner? I have heard the basic stories before, but I never knew that it was started with Crowley's blessing for 'simple people'.

Nero

[emotional]

Hey Waning Moon Conrad,

Is it Wicca as a whole you don't like, or just the Fluffbunny Wiccans? Or is this question incoherent, because you think Wicca = Inherently Fluffbunny Religion?

[stryder2112]

Originally posted by triplew00t
Very good summery Conrad. I am impressed. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more on the history of Crowley and Gardner? I have heard the basic stories before, but I never knew that it was started with Crowley's blessing for 'simple people'.

Nero

Conrad's historical summary was a little bit exaggerated to be a bit satirical in my opinion. For a really good overview of the history of Wicca, the background of Gardner et al., and how Crowley fits into all of this see Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192854496/).

Hutton is an outsider to Wicca and Neopaganism in general. You've probably seen his face before if you ever watch any documentaries from the BBC on the history of Great Britain (many are replayed on the Discovery Channel, TLC, etc.). Dr. Hutton is a Professor of History at the University of Bristol (http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/History/Staff/hutton.htm) and they always seem to throw him in front of the camera for comment in every BBC produced documentary on the history of Great Britain.

Stryder

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by triplew00t
Very good summery Conrad. I am impressed. Do you know of anywhere that I can find more on the history of Crowley and Gardner? I have heard the basic stories before, but I never knew that it was started with Crowley's blessing for 'simple people'.

Nero

It's been ages since I read up on this stuff. I'm pretty sure Crowley doesn't mention it in his "Confessions".

"Ritual Magic in England" by Frances Yates might contain references to it.

Colin Wilson, "The Occult" might be worth a look.

I can remember reading bits here and bits there in books that seemed to be the product of serious research but unfortunately I cannot remember which ones in particular.

I promise that if I do remember titles and references I'll share them with you.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by stryder2112
Conrad's historical summary was a little bit exaggerated to be a bit satirical in my opinion.

Correct. It's accurate according to my knowledge but I simply cannot keep a sardonic streak of humour out of things like this.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Originally posted by emotional
Hey Waning Moon Conrad,

Is it Wicca as a whole you don't like, or just the Fluffbunny Wiccans? Or is this question incoherent, because you think Wicca = Inherently Fluffbunny Religion?

I haven't met many Wiccans.

Unfortunately the few I have met have in fact been simpering mediocrities and I truly do not mean that in a light way.

If I told you the story of an evening spent with "Count Robin Steiner", a wanker from school who only reads cheap fantasy novels and refuses to grow up and the Count's "apprentice" who is "very, very advanced" I swear that you would vomit.

(assertion - he's really a Count because it says so on his passport, he showed me....
reply - he changed his name by deed poll so that Count is now his "christian name"),

Having seen a lot of the Wiccan literature, my question is, are there any Wiccans who aren't fluff bunnies?

Maybe there are. I sincerely hope so but I confess that I am very, very cynical about the whole thing. I just don't think there's anything there except for the histrionic leading the credulous.

It seems to be very easy, cheap and very, very corny.

But I'll say this again. I sincerely hope that there are Wiccans who are genuine and unpretentious and I hope that there's some sort of noumenal experience, gnosis or enlightenment that they can arrive at through their practices.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Waning Moon Conrad
Having seen a lot of the Wiccan literature, my question is, are there any Wiccans who aren't fluff bunnies?

Maybe there are. I sincerely hope so but I confess that I am very, very cynical about the whole thing. I just don't think there's anything there except for the histrionic leading the credulous.

It seems to be very easy, cheap and very, very corny.


It seems Wicca was headed that way ever since its creation. Gardner made the religion up from a mixture of so many sources. So a further "ecclectising" of the religion is no surprise at all. And the fusion of Wicca with the New Age is truly deplorable. But then again, neopaganism and New Age have become pretty indistinct.


But I'll say this again. I sincerely hope that there are Wiccans who are genuine and unpretentious and I hope that there's some sort of noumenal experience, gnosis or enlightenment that they can arrive at through their practices.

Well, I think Calzaer is a serious Wiccan.

[Calzaer]

Nice to know I get a mention in a positive manner. :) Thanks, HD, I appreciate it.

Although there are certainly time when I feel like I might be growing some fluff around the edges...

I think I've about decided that fluffybunny Wiccans (hereafter called 'Fundamentalist Wiccans' since the word 'fluffybunny' makes them sound harmless... and in many cases, they're pretty damaging) are the vocal wing of the Wicca movement. Sort of like how Southern Baptists are a vocal wing of the Protestant movement. There are lots of nice, calm, serious Protestants out there, but the only ones you hear from/about are the frothing-at-the-mouth types.

The difference between Wiccans and Protestants is that the non-vocal wing of Wicca goes to great length to distance itself from the fundamentalist wing of Wicca. Unlike, say, Methodists and Baptists, where one is vocal and one is not but they're both "brothers in Christ" so the distancing that goes on is rather minimal.

[Waning Moon Conrad]

Fluff Bunny Wiccans as fundamentalists!

It doesn't surprise me that someone in the movement would say that.

I've know a fluff bunny New Ager who is very huffy and indignant about the fact that Vajrayana Buddhism does not teach that the cosmos is all kewchie pie and ickle and padded with cotton wool.

Fact is, not only is she a fundamentalist New Ager, she's an ignorant, arrogant bully and a Nazi as well.

Incidentally, regarding "high magicke" there is no shortage of fundamentalist Crowleyans and Golden Dawnists as well. Fact is Crowley, for all his faults, probably wouldn't have pissed on them if they were burning.

[Karalora]

I like to think that I'm not a fluffy bunny. Then again, I don't know whether to consider myself Wiccan, per se, or just a Neo-Pagan "kitchen Witch".

This quiz (http://quizilla.com/users/SwissCelt/quizzes/How%20fluffy%20a%20Pagan%20are%20you%3F/) says I'm "a Scholar....by no means a Fluffy Bunny", but I'm not foolish enough to consider amateur personality quizzes to be gospel (so to speak) authorities.

[Jabu Khan]

Most of the tales of human sacrafice and "The Wicker Man" are taken from Julius Ceaser who was the very man who recruited legions to wipe out the Celts. The Archeological record does not support it. Why Ceasar would be troubled by these autrocities when his reign was opened with men being slaughtered by every available beast known to man escapes me. Pythagoras is believed to have been trained by a druid during his time in a Greek colony in Italy(in a region held by the celts). Recent archeology suggests that they had unversities and hospitals long before the Greeks and Romans(Pythagoras started most of the origional universities in Greece.) What Greek and Roman scholars wrote about the Celts describes them as having three branches of government represented by red, white and blue robes. They elected their representatives and you didn't have to be a merchant or higher to vote. Women were more equal then in other western societies and the closest thing to slavery that they practiced ws a form of indentured servitude thar was sentenced to criminals and prisoners of war. This is not to say that people were not killed ritualistically and that heads of fallen enemies were not considered trophies to be brought back home but they were no more barbirous, perhaps much less, than thier Grecco-Roman counterperts. Celtic sayings that have been handed down are "even the gods most yield to the truth," " I die a free man of a free nation," "above all else the truth." I think the romanticism comes from the fact that the philosophies of the Celts seem to mirror more the principles of current society then the Theocracies of the Greeks and Romans. It has been exagerated perhaps by the noble-savage myth but it seems that much of their views of democray and science later examined by the Greeks and Romans are the things that we revere those cultures for.

[Jabu Khan]

To say that you cant call cultures Celtic because of their involvement with other cultures and their changes over time is like saying Grecco-Roman is a misnomer bacause all their citizens weren't Etruscan or Dorian. I think the the religious influence on western society that we like to downplay likes to deny the possibility that so much scientific reasoning and individualism could be represented by a culture that had little need for an all powerful creator. Even our accounts of Greece and Rome seem to ignore the philosophers who did not search for universals and one thing that all else sprang from. We emphasize these philosophers as great men of reason even though others had already calculated the distance around the equator and established that the earth was not a cylinder or flat but a sphere that revolved around the sun. It seems most of our philosophy books start with the so called pre-socratic philosophers giving examples of very few and trace a steady line of establishing a system of argumentative discussion that leads to the conclusion that God exists based on premises that fly in the face of the very logic they just discussed.

[contracycle]

Originally posted by emotional
Aha! That's the meat of my question. Why is Celtic culture so romanticised, as opposed to, say, Greek or Roman or Norse paganism? What's the attraction of the Celts, imagined or otherwise? Why are there so many Neocelts, Celtic Druids and Celtic "Warriors" on the 'Net nowadays? Has Xena anything to do with it? Or environmentalism (the "back to nature" craze)? Or is it part of the New Age passion for native, unadultered cultures?

IIRC this is essentially down to the development of European Nationalism. Many of the European nationas started investigating their "ancient heritage" in an attempt to assert some soret of internal universalism. This was accompanied by anoutbreak of monumentalist art, such as the Boadicea statue and whatnot. France, Germany, Belgium, Britain, all built "racial histories" based to greater or lesser degrees on ficiton. The nivbelinglied is of course the most famous of these today, becuase it was Germany that toook this nascent ethnic Fascism all the way.