|
Post by redraven on Apr 21, 2009 17:38:53 GMT -1
Yes. It's important to remember that if there's a kernel of truth in the Brennus story, what's being laughed at is Greek *art*, not Greek theology as such. The Greek idea of depicting ideal, spiritual perfection by means of the hyperreal human body beautiful might well have struck a Celt as a bizarrely affected thing to do, rather slick and decadent, as though the Greeks couldn't tell the difference between a god and a buff young man. Celtic statuary is much more oblique- the blank faces, the staring eyes, the simple, almost abstract lines. No doubt there is probably a good deal of truth to that, but I am not convinced that was the main reason for it. RR
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 3, 2009 23:07:48 GMT -1
Just a FYI, but a similar discussion has arisen on one of the TDN gatherings, with the basic premise being there were no named Gods in Britain prior to the Roman.
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 5, 2009 10:17:19 GMT -1
Oh *Christ*. Of course there bloody were.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 5, 2009 11:35:48 GMT -1
Oh *Christ*. Of course there bloody were. No there were not, the nasty Romans just invented them, there are no reliable Roman sources, it's propaganda ..... yada yada yada. You know how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by potia on May 5, 2009 12:12:09 GMT -1
Unless there are two threads going on at the same time I think you are oversimplyfying things LR. What has been suggested is that there were no anthropomorphic gods prior to the Romans and that names were from natural things like the sun and moon. To me that's quite a bit different from suggesting that there were no named gods.
I seem to remember discussion in the past about names and that the Brythonic deity names were not names as we know them but titles such as Farmer, Smith, Most High. Some of those titles to me indicate that there almost certainly were anthropomorphic gods but I can see why some folk might decide that the titles they know of imply there weren't any anthropomorphic gods.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 5, 2009 12:50:51 GMT -1
Unless there are two threads going on at the same time I think you are oversimplyfying things LR. What has been suggested is that there were no anthropomorphic gods prior to the Romans and that names were from natural things like the sun and moon. To me that's quite a bit different from suggesting that there were no named gods. I think you're being overly generous there, the line of reasoning is one that originates from a neo-Druid, self-identifying as animist, coming up with "our native British ancestors rarely naming their deities beyond the animistic "Sun", "Moon" and "Fire", before the Romans arrived" along twith the idea that the Germanic Gods names originated with their recording into the sagas. It's a line of thinking that seems to be seeking to justify following both the the British and Germanic. I seem to remember discussion in the past about names and that the Brythonic deity names were not names as we know them but titles such as Farmer, Smith, Most High. Some of those titles to me indicate that there almost certainly were anthropomorphic gods but I can see why some folk might decide that the titles they know of imply there weren't any anthropomorphic gods. I can too, tbh not many people seem to actually know how names work.
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 5, 2009 13:38:32 GMT -1
Unless there are two threads going on at the same time I think you are oversimplyfying things LR. What has been suggested is that there were no anthropomorphic gods prior to the Romans and that names were from natural things like the sun and moon. To me that's quite a bit different from suggesting that there were no named gods. I think you're being overly generous there, the line of reasoning is one that originates from a neo-Druid, self-identifying as animist, coming up with "our native British ancestors rarely naming their deities beyond the animistic "Sun", "Moon" and "Fire", before the Romans arrived" along twith the idea that the Germanic Gods names originated with their recording into the sagas. It's a line of thinking that seems to be seeking to justify following both the the British and Germanic. I seem to remember discussion in the past about names and that the Brythonic deity names were not names as we know them but titles such as Farmer, Smith, Most High. Some of those titles to me indicate that there almost certainly were anthropomorphic gods but I can see why some folk might decide that the titles they know of imply there weren't any anthropomorphic gods. I can too, tbh not many people seem to actually know how names work. It's all such bullshit. People don't seem to be able to tell the difference between 1) a name not being recorded--because, say, the culture in question didn't have f***ing writing-- and, 2) the name not existing, for whatever spurious theological reason they happen to like at the time. Of course no bloody names survive from pre-Roman Britain. They couldn't bloody write!!! However, their close cousins across the channel, the dear old Gauls, were speaking a basically identical language, but thanks to the Greeks settling in the south of Gaul from 600BC onward, they were able to write, in those nice Greek letters wot the Massalians learn'd 'em from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC onwards. And their inscriptions give us LOTS of named gods. Here's a nice one, from Nimes (put into Latin characters): SEGOMAROS OUILLONEOS TOOUTIOUS NAMAUSATIS EIOROUBELE SAMOISIN NEMETON or, 'Segomaros, son of Uillu, [citizen] of Namausos, dedicated this sanctuary to the goddess Belisama.' Note: this is pre-Romanisation. Native Celtic-speaking Celts in Gaul clearly called their gods with names. Once the Romans conquered Britain and brought the technology of writing, we have plenty of similar inscriptions to gods with Celtic names. What do these TDNers think happened!!!? That the Romans rocked up, and one Briton turned to another and said, 'Good lord, Togiobractos, we'd better stop calling our gods 'fire' and 'wind' and 'earth' and suchlike names, and start giving them, like, proper names, 'adn't we now? Lets us think some of them new-fangled name-things up. Two 'eds is better than wun.' The fact of the matter is that the Britons always had names for their gods--like all the other bloody Indo-European peoples--but that it wasn't until the Romans came that they started the custom of stone inscriptions. The complicating factor--which frankly seems unbelievably difficult for the hard of thinking--is that names in the ancient world (as you say LR) are all basically titles, including personal names. It's us, because of our Christian heritage, who are used to having names in languages we don't understand, like Hebrew (Sarah, Michael, Samuel, Josh), Latin (Mark, Clarissa, Julio) or Greek (Theodora, Luke, Steve.) So people who've never thought about names get the impression that names are essentially meaningless, inherited but personal collections of syllables. They hear that 'Maponos' means 'Divine Son' in British/Gaulish, and say, thinking they're being very clever, 'But ah, what was his *real* name?! You know, the one the ancient druids used?'--as though 'Maponos' stood in relation to some mysterious name as 'Business Accounts Manager' stands in relation to someone called 'Derek'. In fact, in the ancient world and in most cultures other than the 1st world, *names are titles*. 'Beloved', 'Fifth Child', 'Black Elk', 'Lionlike', 'Very bright', and so on. This was true of the ancient Britons and Gauls as much as it was true of anyone else. Their own names mean things like 'Big in Victory', 'Hound of Belinus', 'Badger-slayer', 'Lugus's stallion', 'Sleek pony', and 'Oldster'. In other words, all their names were like our 'Constance' or 'June' -- ordinary nouns, or compound nouns, used as names. Their gods were no different, though I'm sure they had multiple titles. 'Belisama', for instance, means 'Very Bright Lady'. The idea of gods having 'secret names' which are not revealed to anyone probably entered neo-paganism subconsciously from the Judaic prohibition on saying YHWH (a god who did insist on having a secret personal name, there) bolstered by -- of all things-- the dwarves in The Lord of the Rings.One last thing -- if there's no writing from pre-Roman Britain, how do the mavens of TDN know that the ancient British went about 'rarely naming their deities beyond the animistic 'Sun', 'Moon'' etc?!!!! Were they there?! (Don't answer that, some of them probably go around saying 'A priestess of Bhrighdhghdhghdhiit was I', like that ghastly spirit in Restall-Orr's Spirits of the Sacred Grove.) God, I'm so sick of saying all this.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 5, 2009 14:01:02 GMT -1
God, I'm so sick of saying all this. Yes, I can well imagine, but every time you say it you give us a great post! You selfless thing you! ;D
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 5, 2009 14:01:47 GMT -1
One of these days I'll have a sclerotic heart attack and die online. That'll learn you!
|
|
|
Post by potia on May 5, 2009 14:05:57 GMT -1
God, I'm so sick of saying all this. But you say it so well Megli
|
|
|
Post by Lee on May 5, 2009 14:35:55 GMT -1
One of these days I'll have a sclerotic heart attack and die online. That'll learn you! part of me hopes it happens and the whole thing is recorded in html text, part of me hopes it never comes to that. today it is the part of me considering what type of popcorn would be best is in charge
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 5, 2009 14:50:04 GMT -1
<grk!>
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on May 5, 2009 14:52:33 GMT -1
I think you're have to say it a few more times yet, Megli. Why don't you save it for next time, then you only have to copy and paste. Here' my title Burnt Hill, not sure if that's supposed to be impressive?
|
|
|
Post by Heron on May 5, 2009 19:38:53 GMT -1
As for showing us that names and titles are not to be separated, Megli, you certainly make your Mark
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 6, 2009 9:36:40 GMT -1
Ha! Well, that's actually proves my point: I chose megli because it means 'honey-eater' (i.e. a bear) and I love honey So it is actually a title, describing a quality about myself.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 6, 2009 9:40:19 GMT -1
Is this the point where I do my joke about "Two Dogs ... "?
|
|
|
Post by megli on May 6, 2009 12:04:05 GMT -1
Ha, why not.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on May 6, 2009 13:45:35 GMT -1
A tipi, on the Great Plains somewhere, it is full of teenage children, sitting at the feet of their teacher. Enters a great warrior named 'Black Cloud' to speak to said teacher. After a brief conversation Black Cloud leaves. After he has left the teacher says "Black Cloud has much to teach us, he is a great warrior with many scalps yet he is kind to the children also".
One of the children says "Teacher, why is named Black Cloud? Is it because he thunders in battle?" Teacher replies "He is named Black Cloud as your sister is named Blossom in the wind" "How so, old one?" "When a child is born to us, the first thing I see I take as a message from the Great Spirit and name that child so. Your sister, Blossom in the wind, was born on a windy day in spring, as I looked to the old Cherry tree the blossom was caught in the wind. Black Cloud was born in a great storm, and indeed the skies were angry." "Thank you teacher, I see" "Now tell me Two-Dogs-Fucking, why do you ask?"
Hehehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 14:10:08 GMT -1
poor guy.....
Names can be funny things, and somewhere I am happy we are not linking meaning to name anymore so much in daily speech. With a name deriving from Cornelia, I would be persecuted by people making fun of 'the horny one'....
xx Island
|
|