Pre-Christian France

[Ojuice5001]

The three main traditions that modern paganism draws from are the Celtic (considering that Wicca has strong Celtic ties), the Germanic (Asatru) and the Roman/Hellenic. Has there been a time and place where all three were a strong influence on the religion.

Yes. At least one was pre-Christian France. The long-standing inhabitants were of Celtic origin, and practiced the religion of their ancestors. There were also the Franks, whose religion was Germanic. And once the Gauls became part of the Empire (and even before), they were quick to start worshipping the Roman deities. All three of them, together, at the same time as Jesus's movement was gaining momentum.

I think that's interesting, because France was also the homeland of Descartes, the cradle for the Enlightenment that led to the modern world, and, until World War II, a major influence on military affairs.

[premjan]

I think Asterix, Obelix and Dogmatix are just the cutest Celts ever!!

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by premjan
I think Asterix, Obelix and Dogmatix are just the cutest Celts ever!!

:D

All I know of Celtic influence upon France is that the Celts used a numbering system of twenties; that’s why French speakers in France say “quatre-vingts” (literally “four-twenties” ) for 80. Not all French speakers—Belgians say “octante”.

[andy_d]

The Franks were Christians, Ojuice. Ceratinly by the time of Clovis, anyway, and there was no united Frankish empire before him. Hell, Charlemagne was Holy Roman Emperor.

I don't really think you can call the Gauls French, either.

[Ojuice5001]

The Franks were Christians, Ojuice. Certainly by the time of Clovis, anyway, and there was no unified Frankish empire before him.

I meant before Clovis. There may have been no Frankish empire, but there was a Frankish culture. Culture is more important than politics; at least, from the perspective that I take and believe the gods to take.

I don't think you can really call the Gauls French either.

At certain times they were the most settled inhabitants of the land that is now France. The Franks were important, but at the same time they were rather nomadic. The Gauls were a more agricultural people, and as such they are associated with whatever land they live in.

But correct me if any of this is wrong.;)

[andy_d]

The Franks before Clovis? They were a bunch of scattered tribes first mentioned (...does a quick bit of research...) in 241 when they were living by the Rhine. By 481 they were in France, united under Clovis, and Xian. That was the start of them as a distinct group. They lasted until the 8th century, and were the primary defenders of the Roman church in Europe. I'd say the fact that they were Xian for most of their history and spent a lot of time promoting it kind of rules them out from a discussion of "pre-Xian France" They took up Xianity when they moved into France, which means that, by definition, France was not pre-Xian at that time.

I think you've got your dates and cultures muddled up. Forget the Franks if you're talking earlier than 5th century.

As for the Gauls, they may have lived in what we now call France now, but it wasn't France then. In fact the idea that there was any distinct people as "the Gauls" is dodgy. They didn't consider themselves one people. It was the Romans that gave them the name, in the same way that the Greeks invented "the celts".

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by andy_d
As for the Gauls, they may have lived in what we now call France now, but it wasn't France then. In fact the idea that there was any distinct people as "the Gauls" is dodgy. They didn't consider themselves one people. It was the Romans that gave them the name, in the same way that the Greeks invented "the celts".

Okay, but these are both true, right?

1. The people inhabiting France before the fifth century were of the cultural and religious stock we call "Celtic."
2. They were the primary inhabitants of France in the last few centuries before large Christian populations came in.

Right?

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
The three main traditions that modern paganism draws from are the Celtic (considering that Wicca has strong Celtic ties)


Wicca isn’t Celtic. It may have a little Celtic influence (but then, it also has a little Hellenic influence), but it doesn’t have strong Celtic ties. See this article (http://www.thunderpaw.com/neocelt/lugaid.htm) about what Neoceltic reconstructionist pagans think about Wicca.

Wicca has—shudders—too much Abrahamic influence for my liking: from Freemasonry through Christianity, and Jewish Qabbalism. Yuck. I can’t stand anything to do with the Qabbalah. I learnt Qabbalic Wisdom when I was an Orthodox Jewish Hasid. Nebulous in extremis.

I like paganism to be as close as possible to pure idolatry, to worship of seen things such as trees and stones and stars. As far as I’m concerned, the confusion of paganism with the occult is unfortunate.

[Ojuice5001]

Maybe "strong ties" is too strong a phrase. I meant more that many Wiccans see it that way, and there seem to be more Wiccans who consciously consider Celtic religion very important than Wiccans who are just as big a devotee of any other pagan tradition.

And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I not only don't have a problem with occultism, but from what I know about the Cabbalah, I like it. The idea of separating the universe into twenty-two distinct principles, each of which corresponds to a letter of the Hebrew alphabet...I just think that's cool. Kind of like I view the Roman goddess Carmena of the Alphabet.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Maybe "strong ties" is too strong a phrase. I meant more that many Wiccans see it that way, and there seem to be more Wiccans who consciously consider Celtic religion very important than Wiccans who are just as big a devotee of any other pagan tradition.

Yes, that’s probably it. When I got interested in Wicca I too thought it was a Celtic-based religion. It was only later, when I did some research, that I discovered that its rituals come from the Ordo Templi Orientalis, and that from Freemasonry.


And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


All right, I agree to disagree... :) I agree not to force my own version of paganism on those who don’t concord with it.


The idea of separating the universe into twenty-two distinct principles, each of which corresponds to a letter of the Hebrew alphabet...I just think that's cool. Kind of like I view the Roman goddess Carmena of the Alphabet.


I find it silly. Alphabets are a human invention. Nature (I mean life) has only four letters in its writing system (C, G, T, A, the four amino acids). DNA is the only scripture I consider sacred. Not that I’m against modifying it to prevent genetic disease, of course... ;)

[charvakan]

The conversion of most pagan groups was top down, and took a while. The nobility usually went first, often for reasons of state, and their subjects lagged behind. Pagan rituals and beliefs persisted for centuries after a people was nominally Christian. So OJuice is onto something here. There must have been some interesting syncretism for a while, until the Catholic Church was able to enforce its orthodoxy.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Okay, but these are both true, right?

1. The people inhabiting France before the fifth century were of the cultural and religious stock we call "Celtic."
2. They were the primary inhabitants of France in the last few centuries before large Christian populations came in.

Right?

No, because France didn't exist at the time. In the same way that the Rome wasn't Italian.

You're placing modern identities onto a group of people to whom they have no relevance. They never lived in France, and weren't French. "France" as a nation, an identity and a people didn't come about until about the 14th century.

[charvakan]

Noted, Andy. I still think Ojuice (by the way, did you ever find the real killer?) has brought up an intriguing point, albeit one that arose not just in the area we now know as France but in many others. There were traditions and beliefs of some antiquity held by the indigenous populace, and these came into collision with each other, and with the imported religion from Rome (Christianity), particularly with invasions and migrations. I wonder if such collisions actually softened the pagans up for conversion to Christianity. They may already have been forced to acknowledge other gods, so another one may have seemed like not so big a deal. Eventually, though, the bishop would cut down their sacred tree or destroy their idol. Maybe they'd kill (martyr) that bishop, but the next one would be just as implacably opposed to open worship of Odin or whoever. In a couple centuries, only vestiges of the old faith would remain. Superior organization and education triumphs over oral tradition.

[gsx1138]

I think the one thing that could settle this is by asking the most important question used for European expansionism.

"Did they have a flag?" ~Mr. Izzard

If they didn't have a flag then they never existed. :D