Talk:Druid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
WikiProject Celts Druid is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Celts. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess. The project aims for no vandalism and no conflict.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.


Contents

[edit] Caesar - Druids and Nobles or Druids and Knights?

Just one little word in the section about Caesar where it says - "Caesar notes that all men of any rank and dignity in Gaul were included either among the Druids or among the nobles, indicating that they formed two classes." I believe this statement is referring to the line from De Bello Gallico Liber VI, XIII

Sed de his duobus generibus alterum est Druidum, alterum equitum

I'm know nothing about Latin, but equitum seems to imply knight, not noble. (Although knights were likely of he noble class.) In any case, it implies horseman, or something. Am I quibbling, or just wrong? I'll hold off on making any change, because I'm unsure how exactly I'd like this to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mantator (talk • contribs) 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The word 'equites' in Latin does literally refer to a horseman; however, the connotation in Roman society stemmed more from the idea of "someone rich enough to own a horse." As such, 'equites' developed into a Roman technical term for describing a kind of upper-middle/upper class formed by merchants, particularly. -Geoffrey Bain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.225.45 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] questions

I have two questions which I would like answered: 1. Did druids "rule" or were they under somebody elses rule ie a lord. 2. Did druids conduct marriages, were they allowed to marry themselves or did they remain celebate? Thanks in advance!--(unsigned)

First, please sign any comments you add to this page. Thanks.
Druids were not "rulers" but they often held great influence due to their occupations - priest, judge, lawyer, doctor, etc... Druids were not like Christian priests. From what I know, they would have married just like everyone else, if they wanted to do so. There certainly would have been no need to be celibate. --John T. Folden 20:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Who would have ruled back in those days? I dont mean royal I mean rulers of small areas ie barons etc. Thanks again. --89.56.173.245 10:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question. Why doesn't it make any reference to The Undertaker's Druids? they could have at least a small amount of information on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.87.230 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you say Lughnassah, I say Lughnasadh

Changed article spelling of Lughnassah to Lughnasadh, as it corresponds to the existing wiki article. (there is an alt spelling section on the Lughnasadh page under Etymology) It seems to me like having it link correctly seems the way to go.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milovoo (talk • contribs) 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Derived from Ancient Greek?

Odysses - it's misleading say that druides is derived from the Ancient Greek for oak. It's not a native Greek word, but a borrowing from another language which is probably derived from that language's word for oak. The two words for oak are cognate and derived from Indo-European roots, so they look similar, but that doesn't mean you can claim that "druid" is derived from a Greek word and is not a foreign borrowing. --Nicknack009 16:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicknack - there weren't any Druids in Ancient Greece, that's true. Δρυίδης literally means "son of oak tree(s)". I don’t know if this makes any sense.
If you search for similarities between Mycenaeans and Celts you will be surprised. Mycenaean pottery discovered in Britain and Ireland recently proves this.
Besides, Celtus was a person of Greek Mythology, the son of Heracles and Celtine, (Ref.: Parth. 30.1-2, [1]. According to Greek Mythology, Heracles lived before the cataclysm. Looking at druwis and δρύς are probably of the same root. Possibly both used long before Homer.
I won't change the text, but I still believe its relevant to δρύς. --Odysses 19:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
hm, you are aware that the Greek and Celtic languages are related, aren't you? drus "oak" was certainly used long before Homer, but that has nothing to do with druids, and this article isn't about the cultural history of the oak in particular. dab (ᛏ) 19:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Druids lived in oak forests, and there was a very good reason for this. Besides, did I mention "there was no language before Homer?" --Odysses 19:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I cannot remember you did. Well, time to rewrite Origin of language then, I suppose.... dab (ᛏ) 20:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No need to "re-write", just examine existing texts more thoroughly. I had a look in Origin of language. Lots of Biblical references and various hypotheses but no mention of any classical philosophers, like Plato for instance.
In Cratylus, Plato did quote:
the first imposers of names must surely have been considerable persons; they were philosophers, and had a good deal to say.
and
the primeval givers of names were undoubtedly like too many of our modern philosophers…
Correct me if I'm wrong but considerable persons and philosophers can hardly refer to stone age people.--Odysses 09:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why not? --Nicknack009 11:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you aren't actually serious, Odysse[u]s, are you? I wouldn't want to be guilty of troll feeding. If you are, I suggest you have a chat with User:IZAK, who has just amused me with [this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elam&diff=15438509&oldid=15434332] edit :) dab (ᛏ) 11:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Don't worry about me dab. Besides, you are not as bad as you 're trying to look :-)
Amused with Plato? Then may I suggest Hesiod. You'll find it hilarious.
The main difference between Indo-European languages theory and Cratylus, is that the former tend to limit the proto-language to ca. 4000 BC, whereas Plato goes back to before 10.000 BC.
Just wondering, how the Indo-European languages theory could explain the origin of the word "anthropology"? --Odysses 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you are of course making no sense at all. You should try editing the Time Cube, man :o) dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid dub I have come to the same conclusion with you: you are of course making no sense at all.
Allow me to summarise. First you suggest: time to rewrite Origin of language. Then you confess: I wouldn't want to be guilty of troll feeding. Subsequently, I suggest you have a chat with User:IZAK, who has just amused me. The final blow is: You should try editing the Time Cube.--Odysses 10:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Nicknack, by saying " Why not?" I guess you mean why Stone Age people cannot produce advanced achievements like poetry and astronomy.
By the time they will start doing that, they would emerge from the Stone Age to a new Age. History timeline is known to have flaws and is been revised from time to time. Only five centuries ago, it was believed that the world timeline had a span of 6.000 years. --Odysses 11:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You might not have noticed, but astrologically-aligned monuments suggest that stone age people did indeed know astronomy. They almost certainly did create poetry. They might not have been able to write it down, but then neither could Homer. --Nicknack009 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Odysses, I was assuming you were joking. If you are serious, you seem to be representing some viewpoints from the outer fringe of science. The "Stone Age" ends with the widespread use of Bronze. Of course people were civilized long before they had a Bronze industry, and also long before the emergence of the Greek language. You may want to have a look at Neolithisation, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Old European culture, and generally browse around Category:Ancient history before you continue editing. dab (ᛏ) 11:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

dab, you have very nicely put it: from the outer fringe of science.
What was once outer fringe, could possibly someday find it's way within the science, and vice versa. Troy for instance, was in the outer fringe of science 150 years ago, then it was uncovered by E. Shlieman. History is not my Science, so perhaps I am permitted to have a more liberal view.
By looking at the pattern from Golden Age of the ancient world, to Dark ages, to Renaissance, the path of civilization is not always uphill. Then we have the Ages of Man by Hesiod, from Golden to Silver to Bronze to Iron Age, which shows a surprisingly downhill pattern.
To make things more complex, R. M. Schoch, based on erosion measurements claims to have redated the Sphinx to ca. 7000 BCE Redating sphinx/Temp--Odysses 13:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
one day maybe, but before that day, not on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 15:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are of course exceptions to this rule: Atlantis, Ogygia, Scheria, Aeaea.--Odysses 18:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
why? these are factual articles on mythological subjects. the articles are not mythic themselves. dab (ᛏ) 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Nicknack, they certainly knew astronomy and poetry. My view is that they knew a great deal more than it is commonly believed today.
"They might not have been able to write it down, but then neither could Homer"
New findings indicate that there might be some short of writing earlier that previously thought, in some cases, as far back as 7.000 BC.
What puzzles me however is that Homer who composed 33.000 verses (presumably orally) knew exactly what the words write and letter meant.
...so he sent him to Lycia with lying letters of introduction, written on a folded tablet, and containing much ill against the bearer. He bade Bellerophon show these letters to his father-in-law, to the end that he might thus perish; Bellerophon therefore went to Lycia, and the gods convoyed him safely. "When he reached the river Xanthus, which is in Lycia, the king received him with all goodwill, feasted him nine days, and killed nine heifers in his honour, but when rosy-fingered morning appeared upon the tenth day, he questioned him and desired to see the letter from his son-in-law Proetus. When he had received the wicked letter he first commanded Bellerophon to kill that savage monster, the Chimaera, who was not a human being, but a goddess, for she had the head of a lion and the tail of a serpent, while her body was that of a goat, and she breathed forth flames of fire; (iliad.6.vi.) http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/iliad.6.vi.html
Officially we still believe that Homer didn't take advantage of this little tool. --Odysses 10:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
do you have any idea what the Ilias written on Mycenaean clay tablets would weigh? You'd probably need a fleet of triremes, one ship for each book. Maybe the "thousand ships" sent to Troy contained just the legal papers? dab (ᛏ) 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Alexander kept his Ilias under his pillow[2], probably written on papyrus.
Papyrus was in use in Egypt as far back as the First dynasty (3000 BC) and it was imported to the Mediterranean region. It was quite expensive, but it was available at the time. Ancient papyri are still uncovered today in Egypt and are still legible due to the dry climate, but hardly any found in Italy or Greece nowadays.
Clay tables were in use for cuneiform writing and Linear A and B writing. 95% of Linear B tablets contain (bureaucratic) accounting reports, since it was a cheap material. Nothing on literature or any "Sacred texts" was written using Linear B. Probably there was a good reason for this. Sanctuaries really knew how to keep their secrets. Unlike papyri, clay tablets survive for an eternity.--Odysses 16:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PS. I am not sure if this is relevant to this article, but it certainly is an interesting discussion.
PS2. If someone considers appropriate to move this discussion to a more suitable topic, please do. Since I am new to Wikipedia, I am not sure how to do this. --Odysses 14:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed — WP is not a discussion form, and I am not even sure what point you are trying to make. You may want to try writing system or Middle_Bronze_Age_alphabets. You will need some sort of reference if you want to make a claim, in any case. dab (ᛏ) 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Gallic or Gaelic

Don't want to get involved in a revert war, so I'll bring it here. Wetman, I think you're wrong to say that "Gaelic" is intended in the first paragraph, which defines the people the Greeks called Keltoi and Galatae, and the Romans called Celtae and Galli, in modern terms. "Gaelic" refers to a relatively recent Celtic subgroup derived from Ireland, and is not a "loose" term at all. I think the first paragraph probably needs re-writing to make it clear that Druidry was practised in Britain and Ireland as well as the continent, but trying to claim the ancient Gauls and Celts fall under the term "Gaelic" doesn't do it. --Nicknack009 19:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm prepared to be wrong. Should Celtae and Galli be rendered "Celts" and "Gauls" then? --Wetman 03:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Can I change it back? --Nicknack009 07:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've just done so, as it was my error. --Wetman 07:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
well, the modern term "Celtic" covers it all, Gaels, Brits, Gauls and Galatoi. So "Celtic and "Gaulish" is actually redundant. "Celtic" is enough, optionally expanded to "Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish" (I don't think there is any testimony of Druidism of the Celts of Asia Minor). dab (ᛏ) 07:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
the modern term 'Celtic' does, yes, but the ancient term keltoi was not applied to Gaels nor to Brythonic peoples. --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
It preserves balance, to give cognates for both terms. "Parallel thoughts require parallel constructions." --Wetman 13:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi folks. The word Gael is derived from a Welsh word meaning "raiders", which was the term they used to describe pirates from Ireland. We did not seem to have any overall word for ourselves at the time, and the suggestion is that this was gradually applied to the nation as a whole.

Plus, remember that the terms Celt and Celtic refers to unrealted peoples who spoke related languages. Cheers. Fergananim

Just spent a few days in "talking circle" with people who are referred to as apaches, sioux, navajo, and moslem by others and often themselves. All of these words are essentially pejorative, usually meaning raiders or generalized bad dudes. Part of our circle discussion was various Indian and 'Celtic' acorn recipes. Cheers to you too: User:Mike Logghe

So, is anyone going to add an actual Celtic etymology of the word, or shall I check it out and add it? (Assuming that the 'Greek' discussion has now stopped trying to make whatever point it was making). --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How much of this is real anthropology and how much is just Geocities cut-n-paste? References would be appreciated. silsor 05:04, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

This is less than accurate, and needs a bit of work. I'll try to write something off-line in the next week or so. It's a bit too influenced by Neo Pagan and Celtic reconstruction to be historically accurate. DigitalMedievalist 16:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa
Great, thank you. silsor 19:08, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)


I would add the following information to Druidry:

The Druids believed that trees were a sacred source of wisdom. They performed rituals and ceremonies in sacred groves of oak trees, and believed that the interior of the oak was where the spirit of the dead went.

Druids also used the black dye of Rowan for dyeing their ceremonial black robes, which they used for certain lunar ceremonies. They also lit fires of Rowan wood before battles, and incantations were spoken over the flames to summon spirits to take part in the fight and to combat evil forces. (Kornblatt)

I would ask for a source. silsor 19:28, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
Some of this comes from Neo-Pagan "magick" websites, such as http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/rowan.htm or http://www.angelfire.com/ks/larrycarter/Rowan/Tree.html The Rowan does get mentioned in the Finnish Kalevala, which is not as old in the version we see, as it's made out to be, though it's old material. Wetman 20:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The text he proposes seems to be a direct cut-n-paste from the whitedragon.org site, which I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw it anyway. An introduction like
The Rowan (sorbus aucuparia), Mountain Ash, Quickbeam, has the ability, perhaps more than any other tree, to help us increase our psychic abilities and connections.
just sets off warning bells for me. silsor 23:17, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

There are in fact ways of researching this claim other than trying to find a non-existent reference in the literature. Recently while living on the Ucayali in Peru I encountered a young Irish woman who had been studying with a supposed shaman who was teaching her their methods of determining the medicinal and psychic properties of plants. Her intent was to return to Ireland and do this work with plants indigenous to Ireland. Possibly an enterprise in flapdoodle, but having become an afcionado of yage, I would bet more on her success than on your scepticism. I.e. don't burn all your mountain ash yet. In fact I have two in my back yard I had better spend some quality time with now that you mention it.

72.16.47.119


User:Timlane adds:There was thought to have been at least one Druidic University in Britain that taught many subjects including poetry, astronomy & the ancient Greek language. Is there anything to this (note the passive of non-attribution)? "University" is an anachronism of course. Wetman 23:47, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. The words "we are told" alarm me as well. This article seems to have a tendency to drift towards "what we want druids to have been" rather than "what druids were". silsor 00:10, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
There is a single reference by Julius Caesar in the context of hearsay that all druids trained in Britain. This is not taken as literally as the statement above would have it. The reference to "ancient Greek" is particularly suspect in the British context. And I really will try to write something for this page, but there's a dissertation deadline looming. . .

DigitalMedievalist 04:07, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)Lisa

I just noticed this bit: "Of their oral literature of sacred songs, formulas for prayers and incantations, rules of divination and magic, not one line has survived"

It's odd in several ways, among them the reference to "lines," a print convention, (one would use verses for spoken poetry), but more particularly, if we ignore the "oral" context we most certainly do have prayers and incatations preserved in several Continental Celtic languages. DigitalMedievalist 02:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) Lisa

Links to authentic Celtic Druid prayers and incantations would be a welcome addition for this entry, anyone must agree! Wetman 08:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hear hear. If I'm not mistaken, though, most of the ancient dedications are pretty formulaic (e.g. "Person X to God Y dedicates this offering"). QuartierLatin1968 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The very ancient (ie Gaulish) ones tend to be short dedications, yes, although longer texts are also known. Irish material has a bunch more, however, although post-dating Christianity as a state religion. --Nantonos 22:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classes in Greek at the old Anglesey Druid U.=

" Druidic teaching center on Anglesey (Ynys Môn) centred on magical lakes that probably taught many subjects including poetry, astronomy & possibly even the ancient Greek language." Oi! I suppose any attempt to remove fantasy would hardly be worth the ensuing edit war... So hard to keep a "Druidry" entry sane and sound. Wetman 08:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Druidism?

In my experience, the term "Druidry" is most often employed by the OBOD – I believe it was actually coined by Ross Nichols. In order to invite contributions by (A) non-Druid scholars and (B) Druids not affiliated with the OBOD, would it not be preferable to move this article to Druidism? By-the-bye, what is the raison d'etre of this article as distinct from Neo-druidism and Druids? QuartierLatin1968 22:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

D'oh, never mind, this is the article Druids. Okay, then how about we move it to Druids?
Wiki articles are singular unless there's a good reason, so it'd be moved to Druid -- I agree that Druidry is an awful title. DreamGuy 23:18, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm tempted to point out that Druids is singular and Druides is plural (in Gaulish) but agree that common anglicised usage has Druid as singular, so that should be the term used here. --Nantonos 22:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
"Druid" is an improvement. "Druidism" is an untenable assumption: (was it an "ism"?) "Neo-druidism" is self-explanatory from its opening line. --Wetman 06:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
agree to a move to Druid. The intro should be rephrased accordingly. Plus we need 'etymology' (history of attestation) of both Druidry and Druidism (did e.g. the Victorians use these). dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, Druid already exists as a disambiguation page – is that a good enough reason to use Druids instead? Alternatively, should we move Druid to Druid (disambiguation)? QuartierLatin1968 22:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe we should move to Druid (ancient) to be absolutely clear? I mean, there's a Neo-druidism page and whatnot – I think the disambiguation page is kind of useful where it's at. QuartierLatin1968 16:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think "(ancient)" is required. What would a User be looking for? Druids or Druid are both fine, with a link at the head to Druid (disambiguation), where Neo-druidism will be found. Isn't that the plain way? Main meanings should never get shunted aside. --Wetman 18:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Done. I didn't care for my own suggestion very much on second thoughts either. Wetman, are you an administrator? I can't move to Druid since that page has a history. QuartierLatin1968 14:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I moved it. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic priesthood?

What is the status of Strabo's suggestion that Druid != Celtic priest, i.e. that there were three kinds, of priests, druids, bards and vates? The bard article makes no mention, and the vates one I have only just created. Could/should this be compared with Vedic priesthood, Hotar, Adhvaryu, Udgatar? dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's the standard scholarly take. The Classical sources indicate such a tripart division, with a caveat: That is, bard/barddoi is a sub-class of the fili or poet class: oh heck, look here: http://www.digitalmedievalist.com/faqs/druid.html I swear, I really will work on this. Really. DigitalMedievalist 19:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Lisa

ok, but is there any continental evidence for such a "fili" class? Or is it only Insular Celtic? dab (ᛏ) 14:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah; The Irish fili class would be equivalent to the class Greek authors called ovate and Roman authors called vates (see Strabo). Ovate and vates are etymologically related to each other and to Welsh gwawd, a word that used to mean "song" but gradually evolved to mean "satire." Most scholars reason that the vates would be present as "seers" at a sacrifice at which the druids would officiate as priests; this would explain some of the contradictory confusion between the druides and vates in Classical authors (Williams and Ford 1992, 22).
And I'm paraphrasing my own FAQ there, and I've given a good citation.

DigitalMedievalist 16:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Lisa

alright, alright. I misunderstood and thought you were suggesting the fili as a fourth class. `However, we already have faith as Irish correspondence to vates. If you wanted to reconstruct the proto-celtic classes, we would have
  • the druids
  • the vates (=ovates, faith, fili?)
  • the bards
a fili being something like a rishi, maybe. (I understand that fili and faith are "often used interchangeably", however, one word has a continental counterpart, and the other, to my knowledge, doesn't) dab (ᛏ) 18:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you've got it. The Irish word best translated as seer is fáith, and yes, it's cognate with vates. The distinction between fáith and fili is very fine-grained, so I don't think using fáith instead of fili as the "primary" word is a problem. To give an Irish example, Fedelm, the Irish seer whose prophesy for Queen Medb in the beginning of the Táin Bo Cúailnge specifically identifies herself as a banfili, a "woman poet." After Fedelm says she can prophesy, Medb refers to Fedelm as a banfáith, a "woman prophet". DigitalMedievalist 03:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Lisa
ok, of course, I suppose, you can be a bard and a seer at the same time, at least in medieval Britain/Ireland. But wouldn't fili be closer to bard than to faith, seeing that a bard is a poet, and a fili is also a poet? I'm afraid neither the fili nor the bard article is very informative. In early (400 BC) Celtic society, the idea is of course that the titles were mutually exclusive, i.e. you could be a member of one of three classes, but that's of course unprovable. dab (ᛏ) 13:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Late Druidic survivals in Flanders

In which way does this section refer to Druids? IMHO, it refers to the same kinds of superstitions you found in medieaval Scandinavia. I will wait some time for arguments before I possibly remove it.--Wiglaf 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't belong here, but try to move it somewhere, such as folklore of Flanders or something. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I found this section to be interesting, however. Maybe it could still have a link from the druid article, as a source of "leftover pagan practices likely derived from druidism"? It is already difficult to get first hand accounts of old practices that I tend to find even the most derogatory and prejudiced christian assimilators useful... in their obvious attempts to be a nuisance. Gene.arboit 17:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
The section is incontrovertibly connected to paganism as practiced in 7th-century Flanders, we'd all agree. What would be the relevance to Druids of medieval superstitions in Scandinavia? If this is not a red herring, in what sense could they be called "the same kinds"? Paganism in 7th century Flanders that was not Druidic would truly need to be explained and to be supported by some reference. How would it not be druidic, in pagan Flanders? The concrete details from the vita of Eligius are presented with a minimum of interpretation, precisely to avoid quibbles. But more essentially, what is the service to the reader that would be effected by isolating this first-hand information? What is the actualmotivation of this specious reservation? --Wetman 18:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman sources

While the following is from recognized sources:

«"The principal point of their doctrine", says Caesar, "is that the soul does not die and that after death it passes from one body into another" (see metempsychosis). This led several ancient writers to the unlikely conclusion that the druids must have been influenced by the teachings of the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.»

As mentioned on fr:Discuter:Druide, in Les Druides of Christian-Joseph Guyonvarc'h and Françoise Le Roux:

  • Metempsychosis is only found in two cases: Fintan and Tuan Mac Cairill.
  • Pythagoras is quoted as saying that he owed his science from the hyperborean sages, which would be the druids themselves. So the reverse hypothesis might be worth mentioning as well as the one that, as above, is already said to be unlikely, though recognized.

Gene.arboit 17h29 (UTC), 8th of August 2005

[edit] Applicability of the British Museum quote

I thought this note left at my Talkpage was too widely relevant not to be shared:

"On the one hand, good quote from the BM. On the other hand, its talking about many of our misperceptions (as the general public) being wrong. Which is sort of like telling Iron Age reconstructionists that Asterix is not completely accurate - its news to the general public, but not to them. Similarly the modern Druidic groups - not the meso-druids in white robes at stonehenge - are well aware of the historical reality and track historical and archaeological studies closely. So the quote lacks neutrality, in essence. --(NantonosAedui) 12:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

If this means that the British Museum's comments on modern misperceptions of druids are "POV" and lack neutrality—and by inference do not belong at Wikipedia— then it's a classic statement that belongs here at Talk:Druid. Doesn't this also have volumes to speak of "POV"? --Wetman 19:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The British Museums comment on public misperceptions is fine, when used to describe misperceptions by the general public. It would be well placed in the introduction to the article, for example.

When used to describe all modern Druidry, on the other hand, it becomes POV because the target of the comment has been shifted. Its rather like taking a quote that says "the information on many Web pages is inaccurate or poorly researched" and then putting it on the Wikipedia front page as a cautionary quote.

So, the British Museum is not as you put it, POV. The misapplication of their quote in this particular context is, indeed, POV. --Nantonos 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


We trust to Nantonos to set the British Museum quote in its most correct context. --Wetman 21:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thats going to require a new article, or at least a stub, on Meso-Druidry to talk about the 17th and 18th century meso-druidic revivals (Stukely, Iolo Morganwg etc) which is whare the pre-scientific, 200-year old scholarship that the BM decries originated. However that will be useful for the Neo-druidism article as well. The Druidism today section can then talk about different lines of modern Druidry - the continuations of the 18th century, masonic-style fraternal societies, the eclectic Neo-Pagan lines which are not especially rooted in any one ancient culture and are often disinterested in scholarship (out of date or not), and the Celtic Reconstructionist lines which track archaeological developments closely. None of whom are ancient druids; but the approach to scholarship does vary substantially. --Nantonos 22:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I have made a first cut at moving the quote to what seems to be a proper place, and to dissecting out to which strands of modern Druidry it applies. I'm sure it could be improved. In particular the material on cultural and religious aspects mainly applies to the revical-continuation strand, and is written that way, but also applies to the CR strand. --Nantonos 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor revisions to massive anonymous edit

I made many revisions to a largely useful edit, but instead of defending each one, as I began to do, I figure they are self-evident, except that I reinstated the section Social and religious influence which was simply deleted by the anonymous editor. The section could use some improvement, I agree. I also reinstated the section on Modern Neodruidism with its Main article:... heading. Should it be briefer than it is? Our anonymous editor cut the Neodruid references, which must duplicate efforts at Neo-druidism. --Wetman 22:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] image

how about either of these [3] [4] [5] -- date to 1845, from Old England: A Pictorial Museum of Regal, Ecclesiastical, Baronial, municipal and Popular Antiquities by Charles Knight [6]. dab (ᛏ) 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Druid survivors and Secret Societies

Any ideas on druidic connections to some secret societies, namely the Freemasons? I've read about this several times, but would need to brush up on my details before posting anything significant. Any ideas on the theories that the group survived as a secret society, influenced secret societies or influenced the early church in any significant way?

Answer: See Thomas Paines treatise on the subject.

One Example of which is published here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/origin_free-masonry.html

Which concludes with:

" A false brother might expose the lives of many of them to destruction; and from the remains of the religion of the Druids, thus preserved, arose the institution which, to avoid the name of Druid, took that of Mason, and practiced under this new name the rites and ceremonies of Druids."

And with respect to the Druids influence upon the early church, there actually is a blurring between the early church, and the Druids. Some of the early Christian Saints, were actually Druids, themselves.

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

"Dyfrig taught Saint Illtud (c. 425 to c. 505), the founder of the great school/seminary/abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr (English, "Llantwit Major") in the west of South Glamorgan. Illtud was considered the most learned person in Britain, expert alike in Maths, Grammar, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Scripture. He was “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, the writer implying that there was a Druid caste."

(On a side note... Illtud is apparently related to King Arthur, of Knights of the Round Table fame. "For example, in the Life of Saint Illtud, from internal evidence apparently written around 1140, Arthur is said to be a cousin of that churchman. ")

Another quote by a 19th century antiquary, Godfrey Higgins: "In the early history of the Christian church, in Britain and Ireland, we meet with an order of priests called Culdees....They had a very celebrated monastery in the island of Iona, and others in remote situations, and these situations, by accident or design, mostly the former possessions of the Druids....The result of all the enquiries which I have made into the history of the Culdees is, that they were the last remains of the Druids, who had been converted to Christianity, before the Roman church got any footing in Britain. They were Pythagorean Druidical monks, probably Essenes, and this accounts for their easily embracing Christianity: for the Essenes were as nearly Christians as possible." (The Celtic Druids, 1829)

However, it should be noted that Higgins was possessed of some rather radical ideas, in his time. What survives historical inspection is that the early monks of Iona captured in writing what little is known about the Celtic Legends, which were mostly oral traditions. Certainly, by all records, another Saint, Saint Brigid of Ireland was a Druid, or something similar, converted to early Celtic Christianity. Druids, being a skill set bounded caste, rather than simply religion, could follow whatever deity they could see the most light, therewithin.

Unfortunately, while Druids were actually part of the early Church, and Saints, they endured persecution at various points in the churches history. Around 275ad the Papa (Pope) of Rome grew political aspirations of conquering Celtic Scotland, and many edicts specifically aimed at undermining the Celtic Church, were pronounced by the Roman Papa, such as the banning of the "edification of places and things, such as tree's, lakes or streams", a common Celtic/Druidic practice, as well as "Reincarnation". Such politically motivated dogma gave rise to the term "propaganda", coined by the later Roman Catholic Church. The Druids and their ways were "demonized" by the Church propaganda, reoccuring over and again throughout centuries, often preceding the attempted conquest of a Celtic, or Druidic influenced, Territory (Example: Germanic Tribes).

The Roman Church had quite a problem with a complete conversion of much of the Celtic region, thanks to the Druids. The Romanizing influence on the church really didn't take until the time of St. Columba who coined the phrase "Jesus is my Druid", capitalizing on the very popularity of the traditional beliefs. This resistance is owed in part to the Scottish seat of the Celts having remained unconquered by Rome, the dominant culture underlying the spread of "Romanized" Christianity. The Roman Church - Celtic Church conflicts, among others, sat among the motives for the eventual calling of the First Council of Nicaea, presided over by Constantine the Great. Constantine saw Wisdom in attempting to assert Rome as the final word in all matters ecumenical. The Emperor envisioned a future of conquering victoriously under the "Sign of the Cross".

It was Constantines cultural impact that set in motion the factors that mutated the cross of the early Christians, a circle, with an equilateral cross in the middle, to the sword-like elongated cross in more common use today. The Culdees would have interpreted the early Christian cross as the "Divine Circle", (from whence we derive the old latin term Deis (Modern: Dais) or Disc, but also the term Deity, Deus (God), and Deuce (Two).

["For there were Two Discs, One Disc to Rule the Day, and One Disc whereby to Govern the Night.."]),

having history as an early nature based symbol. And the "equilateral cross" as the "Four Directions[Natures] of the Unseen Winds", or in some writings, "Pillars of the Earth", (see Enoch) all very natural symbols. This early form of Cross is also known as the Greek Cross, for the earliest followers of Christian teachings, the Orthodox Greeks, used it as well. The same cross can be found in many cultures, and histories, many predating Christianity, such the the sun cross or Odins cross.

Eventually, thanks to Constantine, the "Equilateral Cross" mutated into the "Chi-Rho" of the Roman Christians (or Labarum), and then distended to better be representative of the sword, that the Rho was somewhat reminiscent thereof. Cultural artifacting of this earlier Cross is exhibited by Celtic Church symbols, including the Celtic Cross of Iona, The Greek Orthodox Church, and many Protestant Church symbols, and their cultural heirs.. as well as the ones in the earliest Catacombs of the Martyrs.

Near the end of the middle ages, the German word for Pentagram, "Drudenfuss", (literally "Druids Foot") was mistranslated by the church propaganda as "Witches Foot", about the time The Pope, Innocent VIII, issued his now famous Bull, "Summis desiderantes," in 1484, claiming "Germany was filled with Witches". This inflamed the fervor of "Witch Hunting" that was to span several centuries, winding down finally, around the time of the Salem Trials. By then, the damage had been done, Druids had become intimately associated with Witches, who had become associated with Evil, when in fact many were counted among the Saints, Monks, and Bishops of the early Church, itself.

[edit] Druids as a Hereditary Caste

Extracted from http://www.angelfire.com/dc2/druidsp2/, reprinted in several places, it is quoting from what little survives of the Celtic traditions in writing, being re-quoted, for example, at the above site, among many others.

"In contrast, the áes dána(Gaelic:Aois-dàna) were artists and belonged to no tribes. They included bards (traveling poets/musicians), filí (household poets and historians), druids (Old Irish: druí), metal workers, and other artists /artisans. It has been proposed that the positions were hereditary and hence composed a caste-like system, but role did seem to include some social mobility, albeit early in life. Also, the children of druids were not always druids. For instance, Conchobar_mac_Nessa_ was the son of Cathbad and Nessa. He grew up to be king of Ulster."

The Druids were a caste, but not *strictly* hereditary, correcting Julius Caesar. One needed "The Gifts" to be a Druid, either inherited, or derived from coincidence at birth. One cannot be a "Bard", if one lacks the skills to produce quality music... or a "Seer", lacking the inner sight. And while an individuals parents having musical talent might imply a good probability that the individual will have musical talent, it does not guarantee it, such was the "caste" of the Druids. It often ran in families, but fortuitous birth wasn't overlooked, talent is talent.

Replace the "musical talent" in the above analysis, with "intelligence and predisposition to prescience", paralleling the distinction between the role of the bard and the druid sub-castes, and the "rules" of the hereditary role in the "caste" becomes evident, basic breeding. As noted above, the social mobility to enter into the caste often occurred at an early age, this gives evidence of correlating to the point at which the "talent" of an individual was recognized. This evidence thus furthers the clarification of the hereditary role in this seemingly oxymoronic "mobile caste" social infrastructure, described by Caesar, the caste lines were drawn by inherent skill sets, sometimes known as "native ability", which often, but not always, paralleled lineage".

A "reference material" quote, further supporting this caste system having a basis in hereditary lineage is found at:

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

"Dyfrig taught Saint Illtud (c. 425 to c. 505), the founder of the great school/seminary/abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr (English, "Llantwit Major") in the west of South Glamorgan. Illtud was considered the most learned person in Britain, expert alike in Maths, Grammar, Philosophy, Rhetoric and Scripture. He was “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, the writer implying that there was a Druid caste."

Such deliniations in "Cultural Specialization", or the more common term "Caste", apparently became an anthropological precursor, or foreshadowing, for the later Craft Guilds, which were discretely specialized in focus of work. Even "Surnames", when they gained popular use in the middle ages, often reflected the trade of a particular family, i.e. "The Miller's","The Taylor's". Of course, not all the family went into the "family trade", and even more confusing to genetic historians is unrelated individuals performing similar functions, in different regions, often carried the same "Surnames" although perhaps distorted by regional dialect. IE "Smiths", "Smythes", the later sounding the "y" as "I".

I am still seeking the original author of the Saint Illtud quote. If I can find it, I can weave this into the main article... I am seeking reference type material, not opinion, or "mysterious family lore".

The above quote appears over and over, in reference material around the world, yet not one mention of who originally penned the phrase “by descent a Druid and a fore knower of future events”, are we to assume that it was an unnamed historian of the abbey of Llan Illtyd Fawr ?

Of course, on a final note, there is a disambiguation on the term "hereditary", with respect to bards, evidenced in the quote below.

http://www.libraryireland.com/articles/IrishBardsBonwickDruids/index.php


Irish Bards From "Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions" by James Bonwick, 1894

"There were hereditary bards, as the O'Shiels, the O'Canvans, &c., paid to sing the deeds of family heroes. A lament for Dalian ran--"

"A fine host and brave was he, master of and Governor,
Ulla! Ullalu!
We, thrice fifty Bards, we confessed him chief in song and war--
Ulla! Ullalu!"

"Hereditary Bards", are not always "Hereditary Bards"... One is "by Descent", the other specialized in a particular family's history.

[edit] Druids in Vedas of India

It is well known that the Rig Veda is the oldest available texts of mankind. The rig veda has a graphic account of the fight between various families all desecended from a common ancestor called Bharata with the members of Anu and Druhyu clans up against the Yadus and Purus. The Druhyus are described as driven out of the north western part of India from where they migrated to far off lands. They are nevertheless believed to have carried some Vedic Brahminical practices. Hence the priestly castes and groups among the Druids. Some scholars have even pointed out that the word Brittania is in realty entymologically derived from the Sanskrit Bharata-tanuja meaning those born in the line of Bharata.The descendents of Anu settled around Iran. {{unsigned|Gv365|08:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)}

As someone who has studied Celtic Studies and Indian Culture, I see it as entirely possible that the Aryan vedic culture and the Celtic druidic culture could be interconnected, especially with the evidence of a stone-age culture stretching from France, through Spain and along the African northern coast all the way through the Mid-East and ending in northern India. This can be seen in the placement of early 'rock-house' shrines, probably connected to animistic ancestor worship mystery cults which predate written history, which can be found from Europe to the Near-East.

[edit] Be'al?

Am I to understand that the Celts worshipped "Be'al" (an obvious similarity to Ba'el, the diety of the Caananites and an occasional reference to God) ? This is interesting considering that the Vikings apparently also had their mythological realm called "Nephelim" which is another Caananite reference to the Giants of the Old Testament. It would be NICE to see a citation or some kind of reference!!!--68.60.55.162 01:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the ba'el poster, as best I could. Bel, Belanus.... Be'al, is more from the Indian culture. 19th Century writers have tried to link Bel, to Baal... although very few scholars accept the relationship. While most writings flat out reject it, Baal of the Obelisk, and the Bel of the Maypoles, seem to exhibit a few points of "cultural congruity". "The Shining One", and "The Sun" , in conjunction with the tall upright objects like the Obelisk and Maypole may show "influence" between cultures.. However, there may be myriads of intervening cultures rather than a direct contact, or descendant. "Reflections of Reflections of Reflections", as I heard it said once. Etymologists are on a linguistic archeology hunt, and some of these "sounds alikes" are significant, and some not.

The Maypole is not Celtic. It more recent generations it came into some Scottish and Irish urban areas from the English influence, but never reached many rural areas. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Maypole is Germanic in origin, there is an interesting overlap of the Druids and the Germanic tribes.Their cultures traded elements, and shared territories. Remember, when the Pope decided to invade Germany, he did it with the cry that "Germany is filled with witches", when in fact, it was filled with Druids. I wonder, can Druids be called *strictly* Celtic, in origin ? I have my doubts. [RBI]

Looking through this, this article is actually really messed up. There is an ongoing confusion of the historical, Celtic druids with the fanatasies of the romantic revival. I'm going to try to fix a few of these, but don't have the time to do a thorough job on it right now. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read through and the problems aren't anywhere near as bad as I thought. I took out the opening bit about Stonehenge and Be'al. Why is "druids" capitalized as a default in this article? I'd also question the default of "druidry" in the cases where it would be more accurate to refer to Celtic religion. Still need to go through the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna 23:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I didn't have the heart to take out the Stonehenge comment, although, it needed removing. I had tried to leave some remnant of the Bel comment, as there is a grain of truth to it. However, Be'al I suspect is a derivation of an Indian continent name... not Belenus. The poster who studies the Vedas was trying to tie Bel to Baal, a not uncommon, but also probably not accurate point. The Bel and Baal connection appears to be a 19th century fallacy, in origin. The Stone Henge fallacy dates to the 18th century, during the Druid revival. Any idea about *any* connections to stone circles ? Is there any truth in that, at all ? [RBI]

[edit] followup on the capitalization issue

So, yeah, why are capitalizing "druid"? If there isn't a good reason I'm going to go through and fix it. Right now it's inconsistent. Also reiterating: Why are we defaulting to "druidry" vs. "Celtic religion"? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gore as Arch Druid?

Should mention be made that people are calling Gore an Arch Druid? Mathiastck 18:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Source seems to be a single quote[7] from Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute; I'm not sure it warrants an inclusion here, but maybe in the article for An Inconvenient Truth. I'll copy this to that talk page. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a habit of assuming that when I see what looks like a new buzz word in a news article I can look it up on wikipedia :) Frankly I love the term "Arch Druid" how hard does one have to work for the environment before the press calls you that? Mathiastck 19:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say "no." If people called him a "tiger," we wouldn't be adding that note to the section on tigers.
Septegram 11:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Editing Problems

Someone seems to have meant to edit out a couple lines/paragraphs, and took out half the page by mystake, including the sources, external links and links to Wikipedias in other languages. I tried to restore it but leave out what I think that person might have meant to take out, but I'm not sure. If any of you people who know much about neo-druids feel the issue has been slighted in any way, feel free to add back in some of the stuff I deleted. - Kyle543 03:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ADF

I noticed that there was recently an edit and a revert regarding ADF. While I agree that ADF did not belong right next to OBOD (as the two operate under two completely different philosophies), perhaps ADF should be added to the Modern section to show that there are organizations not based upon the Romantic movements of the 19th century. --Sidhebolg 07:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on accuracy of Druidic History

It is commonly known that Caesar's accounting of the Druids is inaccurate among Druidic historians. There are many other accountings that show them in their correct light, so the statement that Caesar's writings are "the most accurate" is a complete falsehood and should be changed to read "as accurate as the time and Caesar's agenda for change for the eradication of the Druid culture can be." I will not make that change as I am a mere student and there are many who are more knowledgeable than I. As for ADF being in a "modern" section, shouldn't the modern section be included here or did I miss something?24.136.66.15 19:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Brigid

Modern "druid" groups are covered in the Neo-druidism article :-) Beannachdan, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Druidism-Neo-druidism Euro-American

The last sentences of the first section don't really seem to be composed from a neutral point of view - I don't know whether they're factually based but they're definitely not in the same style. 129.234.4.1 21:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which section you are referring to here. Could you please clarify? ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can't cite Wikipedia as a source for a Wikipedia article

The person who removed the "Pliny the Elder" citation for the source of the "sun, moon, and stars" deification, please pay attention. Wikipedia isn't cited, Pliny the Elder is/was cited as the source, Wikipedia just happens to have a copy of the original quote in the Coligny Calendar article. Thanks in advance.

[edit] Bards supplanting Druids?

The article states that the Bards started supplanting Druidic duties in classical times and completely replaced them by Christian times. No source is given, and the "Citation Needed" has been there for quite some time. Since it was noted in earlier sections about classical writers referring to Bards as a sect of the Druid caste, I'm going to remove the offending statement for now. Cuindless 10:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(user=Chaosa, not logged cause im also doing college work at college) Im not sure bout the revlance, but the info on this page refere mainly to the word druid, may i mention that there is a 35,000 year old religion druidism, this which predate all other people and religion currentley known on this planet. And they have also been linked to the stonhenge like formations in Africa. Also many have believed that they were world wide over 20 thousand years ago, which wouls suggest they could have been here fore the erecting of stne henge, but it is hard to tell with the occultic religions as we know have little records of them, thanks to the Christian, catholic and jewich people accross the world in mediaval ages, who wanted rid of all occultic and spiritualist peoples, me being spirirtualistic my self, know the true meaning is not religous.

[edit] Moved from Article

This unsourced section should probably be moved to the Paganism article, or something on the history of the Low Countries themselves, as it seems to be about local (Germanic?) Pagan (or pagan) traditions, and not about druids at all:

Low Countries
The people of the Low Countries were Christianized in the 7th century, through the efforts of Saint Eligius. One of the best glimpses of late Druidic[citation needed] practices comes from the vita of Eligius written by Saint Ouen, his contemporary and companion. Ouen drew together the familiar admonitions of Eligius to the pagans in Flanders. "It does not represent anything he said in a particular day in order" Ouen cautioned, "but is a digest of the precepts which he taught the people at all times."
Eligius in his sermons denounced "sacrilegious pagan customs." The following excerpted quotes from Ouen's vita of Eligius are instructive, for the negative description they offer of some late pagan practices in Flanders. In particular, he denounces the consultation of "magicians, diviners, sorcerers or incantators", auguries, and superstitions related to the moon. He refers to vetulas and "little deers" and iotticos, and to the invocation of (in the interpretatio romana) Neptune, Orcus, Diana, Minerva, Geniscus and as well as "devotion to the gods of the trivium, where three roads meet, [cf. Hecate], to the fanes or the rocks or springs or groves or corners" as idolatrous customs, and he frowns on Yule Midsummer celebrations. Further, he prohibits the wearing of phylacteries, "even if they are made by priests and it is said that they contain holy things".
The translator noted that vetulas was a reference to corn dollies. Other pagan customs enumerated by Eligius include "lustrations or incantations with herbs" and "passing cattle through a hollow tree or ditch" and "shouting when the moon is obscured" and adoration of or swearing by the sun or moon, and "diabolical games and dancing or chants".

But leaving it here for the record. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you Kathryn, articles like this attract a lot of small revisions over time and can slowly drift away and lose structure. I'm trying to do something similar at Wicca and support your sharpening of focus here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Field of Magic

where do druids fit in the field of magic? i mean their name breaks down to magician, but how were they important in the history of magic--Kobe2408 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The name does not "break down to magician", but they were often referred to in Latin as Magi, perhaps because of a perceived similarity. Redheylin (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Past tense vs. Present tense?

Druids today seem to be covered in Neo-druidism and are mentioned a it later in the article, but shouldn't they be mentioned in the lede? Maybe a sentence like: "Druidry in its modern form is practised by neo-druids."? --Conor (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because that sentence cannot be supported. You can have "today, neo-druids practise a fantasy version of druidism"! Redheylin (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
My view would differ from the two of you: I don't think that in a short, pithy introduction there is place for a relatively minor sub-topic as Neo-druidism. I think the presence of the sub-section further down the article is fine, and to promote it would give undue weight to a topic that does, after all, have its own separate article. (PS: If there were to be a mention in the lead, it would need to be more scrupulously neutral then either of these, IMHO.) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Last Line in Article

"However, the druids left no written accounts of their own practices, so much of this hypothesis is complete speculation, as is most of the above article." Sounds really professional and encyclopedic, doesn't it? I'm just passing through the article, but is there some way to express the uncertainty and speculation (in fact, done earlier in the article) better than this, tongue-in-cheek as it may be? 98.215.48.213 (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)