Read an Excerpt

Where the Hawthorn Grows

An American Druid's Reflections

John Hunt Publishing Ltd.

Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Beliefs and Practices

Why Reconstruction?

The question is asked, sooner or later, when people find out that a person follows a reconstructionist approach, why reconstruction? While I no longer think of myself as a Celtic reconstructionist (or CR) per se, I do feel that reconstruction is a big part of my own practice and I enjoyed thinking about the question. Reconstructionism is an approach which uses historical evidence, mythology, folklore, and secondary sources to understand what the original pagan faith would have been like. This is then used to envision what that kind of paganism might have been like if it had never ceased to be practiced.

I began in mainstream neopaganism but even at a young age was drawn to Irish material. Back in the early 1990s the only way to follow that up available to me was to delve into historic and mythic literature. This gave me at least a basic understanding of what was known about the actual beliefs and practices of the pagan Irish. Why I was drawn to the Irish is a bit of a separate topic, but suffice to say it was a longstanding interest nurtured by family heritage and stories. Later, when I began to find books by popular pagan authors that claimed to be genuine or traditionally Irish or Celtic, I was disappointed to see a decided lack of genuine material. I could never be satisfied following made-up or imagined Irish paganism. I think that quest for Truth is what led me into Druidism and I was lucky enough in the late 1990s to find a reconstructionist Druid discussion group (which later became an Order) and that gave me the concept of practicing modern paganism based on reconstructionist principles as a viable method. I say lucky because this was still a time when the majority of Druidic groups were solidly revivalist or neopagan; neither of which is bad, necessarily, but both of which include the very romanticism or outside influences I was trying to avoid. Finding the Order of the White Oak showed me not only that I wasn't alone in seeking to learn about the actual pagan practices but also that it was possible to shape those historic practices into something modern and fulfilling. In my own way I had been practicing reconstructionism without knowing what it was for several years, but finding other people was inspirational.

In the same way, though, I have an inherent need for mysticism and magic that pulled me beyond simply studying the material or keeping to the surface of practicing it. I was drawn to seek the practical applications of the most esoteric aspects of Irish paganism and to learn the magics talked about in the myths and stories that I read. In the end I think what drew me into Druidism was the desire to embody that same pagan magic I was reading about; at 14 I didn't want to be like the Driud Fedelm of the Ulster Cycle, I wanted to be Fedelm. Of course I was also driven from early on to serve my community as what can only be described as clergy. There is a certain inevitability in a person who is so driven by Irish culture, myth, and magic, and a call to serve, ending up being drawn to Druidism. Nonetheless I was never satisfied with the modern Druid groups who all either lacked something I was looking for or included something I was trying not to include myself. Only in finding a reconstructionist Druid Order did I find something that seemed to be exactly what I needed.

Being a reconstructionist satisfies my need for a solid historical basis while being a Druid satisfies my need for mysticism and magic. It probably seems like utter cognitive dissonance to some, but it is the only thing that really works for me, and that is why I am a reconstructionist and that is why I am a Druid as well.

The 'D' Word

Nothing is more useful in paganism or can cause more confusion than labels, and both of those apply in equal measure to the word 'Druid'. Labels, of course, serve an important purpose in connecting to people's schema and helping to give an instant understanding of what you're talking about or trying to convey; they create a common ground, although sometimes definitions differ and discussion is required to get on the same page.

The best words to describe my spirituality are probably págánacht and heathen, since the first is specific to Irish paganism and the second is general for an eclectic Norse/Germanic spirituality. I don't mix the two together, but rather follow them both separately; four holidays for one, four for the other and I am dedicated to a deity in each pantheon. Maybe this is not the ideal solution in some people's eyes, but it works for me. I like having nice single words to use as descriptors in a conversation because sometimes precision is a virtue. When I'm asked what my religion is or what path I follow and my answer is a paragraph-long explanation it tends to put people off, but a nice simple answer can open up further conversation and a more detailed follow up explanation. So instead of starting off with 'I'm an Irish reconstructionist and heathen who practices witchcraft', I generally tell people I am a Druid.

Druid is a highly controversial term in CR (Celtic reconstructionism) because many people feel the old Druids are dead and gone beyond being brought back. They were the educated class of their society, the doctors, lawyers, advisors, priests, seers, and elite musicians, so there is some weight to the argument that recreating them as they were is impossible. In modern usage the word has come to denote a practitioner of a religion, Druidism, although I personally don't see it as describing a religion but as a title for a position within a religion, like priestess or imam. That's what it was always supposed to mean, and it was only after the Druids were separated from Celtic paganism during the revival period in the 18th century (to allow Christians to be 'Druids') that it took on an -ism of its own; or a -ry depending on your viewpoint. I think those of us trying to reconstruct Celtic paganism should include the clergy (not everyone agrees with me) and go back more to the old model of Druids and lay people all practicing Celtic polytheism, but it may be that too much time has passed with Druidism being its own religion for that to ever happen. Things change and evolve.

So, having said that, why do I use the word Druid? Why call myself a Druid when I practice Irish paganism from a reconstructionist perspective and I know how controversial the word is? It would certainly be easier in some contexts not to call myself a Druid. Part of the answer is that I feel it is the best word I know to describe what I do in a public setting, as someone who acts as clergy to a larger community. Part of the answer is that I belong to a Druid Order and have earned the title through that Order. And it is the single word that best encompasses what I do and believe, even with the misconceptions and vagueness around the term, to use when talking to someone who is not a reconstructionist. Realistically, most of the people I talk to about religion have no idea what reconstructionism is, but everyone has some idea of what a Druid is. It gives me something to work with, a place to start and build on. So I use it because it does describe who I am and what I do and because it is an effective way to talk about my spirituality. Controversy and all.

Living Reconstruction

I've been talking lately with a couple friends about reconstructionism and, in the course of the conversation, we end up sharing stories of past experiences. Somehow the conversation had turned to the way that people often misunderstand what reconstruction is and the funny and frustrating discussions that result. That got me thinking about how many people really don't understand what reconstruction is all about. So the following is my attempt to clarify a couple things and my own impression of what reconstructionist religions are.

First off, many people seem to think that being a reconstructionist means trying to live like, or have the spirituality of, an ancient culture – sorry, no. Reconstruction is about learning as much as we can about what the ancient culture was like and what the religion was like in order to bring the core of it forward in a workable modern way. We are not trying to bring ourselves back or create a backwards looking religion, rather we want to envision what that ancient paganism would have grown into had it not been interrupted. By researching and using archaeology, anthropology, history, mythology, and linguistics we can gain a better understanding of the beliefs and practices that existed thousands of years ago and find the best ways to bring that forward in a viable modern way.

Secondly, reconstructionism is not a static faith; it is not only about picking out bits and pieces of old pagan practices to use. Achieving a thorough grounding in the ancient culture and the principles of modern reconstruction allows people to then create new material in the spirit of the old material; songs, poems, invocations, rituals, and all the other essentials. No religion can survive long if it is not living and growing and that is equally true of reconstructionism. Now it is true that new material has to be in line with the old, because part of reconstruction is not introducing foreign elements, but the world we live in today is very different from the world thousands of years ago – if we can't create a religion that is modern and that is adapted for the modern world, then really, what's the point?

So to me reconstruction is a viable modern faith that is rooted in an ancient pagan faith, brought forward as we envision it if it had never stopped being practiced. Each individual and every group will have their own ideas on what that would look like depending on their own views and interpretations of the available material, creating a very similar situation to what it was like back then, when each tribe had its own particular way within the larger culture. Nonetheless we all share a common goal and a common vision that should hold us together as a community. We keep the core cultural values, the main religious practices and beliefs, and we use critical thinking and inspiration, along with a deep understanding of the historical culture, to adapt the surviving material and to create new material in the spirit of the old. Reconstruction is not just about the book-knowledge or the research – it's about actively living the spirituality we find there.

Who Were the Druids?

Recently a friend asked a question – who were the Druids to the Celtic peoples? It's an interesting question and it made me think about exactly what role the Druids played within their society. The first hurdle is to decide where to start in looking for clues about who the Druids were. Every possible source of information has its flaws, either through the bias of the authors of secondary sources, or the bias of people interpreting harder evidence such as archeology. However, these flaws are not insurmountable and do not require that all evidence should be thrown out, especially when evidence from different sources is supportive of the same point. I think in the end we are left with secondary sources (Greek, Roman, and Christian) and mythology as well as supposition from archeology and anthropology to form a picture of who the Druids were. Each one offers a little piece of evidence and requires a certain cynicism.

Personally I have always rejected the common modern division of the Druids into 'bards, ovates, and druids', although I can see how this is a convenient way to divide up segments of study. As Dáithí O hÓgain says in his book The Sacred Isle:

Given their similarity in function abroad, and their interchangeability in Ireland, it seems best to regard these three terms druis, velitos, and vatis [druid, bard, and seer] as indicating the functions of the wise man among the ancient Celts. In the world of antiquity, we should not look for a clear distinction between great wisdom in its practical and sacred senses. (O hÓgain, 1999).

So instead of seeing the Druids as divided into rigidly different segments, I think it more likely there was cross training that would have made each Druid able in the basics of each area, but allowed individuals to specialize.

I also don't agree with the idea some people put forth that an individual Druid was an expert in all things associated with Druidism. I think that the Druids filled a certain role within society as the educated class, if you will, and religious leaders, but that just like in today's professional careers there was specialization. A fair analogy for my view may be of someone in a modern setting who goes through a degree program and attends all the same basic classes, but also goes to classes in focused electives. So this is why, I think, we see Druids referred to as seers, priests, judges, advisors to kings, healers, and astronomers.

So, who do I think the Druids were?

To start, I think the Druids were concerned with any and all religious matters, both of doctrine and practice – Caesar tells us that 'Druids are concerned with religious matters, private and public sacrifice, and divination.' (Freeman, 2002). Diodorus also mentions the role of Druids:

The Gauls have certain wise men and experts on the Gods called druids, as well as a highly respected class of seers ... It is a custom among the Gauls to never perform a sacrifice without someone skilled in divine ways present. They say that those who know about the nature of the Gods should offer thanks to them and make requests to them, as though these people spoke the same language as the Gods. The Gauls ... obey the rule of the priests and bards ... (Freeman, 2002).

From this I gather that public religious ceremony required a Druid to preside. Caesar also mentions that a person brought before the Druids for judgment who ignored the ruling would be banned by the Druids from attending public ceremonies, and that this was viewed as an 'extremely harsh punishment' by the Gauls (Freeman, 2002). This reinforces the idea of the pivotal role that the Druids played within the society and in religious life. I think the Druids were judges. Caesar, in his Gallic Wars, says, '... the Druids are the judges on all controversies public and private.' Strabo also comments in a similar way, saying, 'The Gauls consider the Druids the most just of people and so are entrusted with judging both public and private disputes.' (Freeman, 2002). I know it's common today to refer to them as lawyers, but I don't feel that's accurate because the modern idea of a lawyer carries associations that are simply not what the Druids actually did. In a modern context the word lawyer refers to people who advocate for a particular person or side in a dispute, and historically the Druids, as 'Brehon', did not do this but acted as judges or speakers of the law. The word in Irish 'breitheamh' (Old Irish brithem, plural brithemain) means judge, not lawyer. It's an issue of semantics in English but using the word lawyer implies action as an advocate, whereas judging is what they actually did. In the Old Law texts the Brehon (brithemain) always act as judges. The law texts do have a classification for a person who fills the role of an advocate, but that would be 'aigne' (that's the Old Irish). Fergus Kelly also discusses, in his book Early Irish Law, that people were often represented before the king or brithem by a fethem, a non-professional lawyer who was usually the head of the person's kin group (Kelly, 1988).

I think the Druids were seers. Although many references seem to separate the seers into a different category, it is also clear that the boundaries were fluid and that Druids were also seers; so I think, rather than three rigid categories, the Druids themselves were experienced as ritual leaders, seers, and bards. For example, in all the following cases the words 'Druid' and 'seer' are used interchangeably or a person identified as one is given the attributes/skills of the other:

The practice of divination is not even neglected by barbarians. I know there are Druids in Gaul because I met one myself ... He would predict the future using augury and other forms of interpretation. Cicero (Freeman, 2002).

Tiberius passed a decree through the senate outlawing their Druids and these types of diviners and physicians. Pliny (Freeman, 2002).

The Druidess exclaimed to him as he went, 'Go ahead, but don't hope for victory or put any trust in your soldiers.'

Lamoridius on the emperor Alexander Severus receiving a prophecy when passing by a Druidess (Freeman, 2002).

Another account by Vopiscus relates a similar tale of Diocletian being told he would one day be emperor by a Druidess offering a spontaneous prophecy, and later the same writer says: 'On certain occasions Aurelian would consult Gaulish Druidesses to discover whether or not his descendants would continue to rule.' (Freeman, 2002).

Indeed, in The Sacred Isle by O hÓgain, the author points out that, 'Prophecy and divination are the accomplishments most frequently attributed to Druids in Irish literature,' which clearly establishes that there is no way to separate the concepts of seers and Druids from each other, particularly in the Irish (O hÓgain, 1999).

So we've looked at evidence supporting the roles of the Druids as ritual leaders, judges, and seers, but this is only a small piece of who the Druids were. We also have evidence that within their societies they were sacred poets, teachers of wisdom, the ones who understood the deeper mysteries of the natural world, and magic users. However, discussing the bardic role of Druids alone is fairly complicated.
(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from Where the Hawthorn Grows by Morgan Daimler. Copyright © 2012 by Morgan Daimler. Excerpted by permission of John Hunt Publishing Ltd..
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---