|
Post by megli on Sept 1, 2009 10:57:27 GMT -1
No. This is a CLASSIC example---no offence---of taking medieval literature, combing it for things that kind of look a bit pagan if you squint a bit, and saying 'Aha! We can use this!', without really interrogating the context or literary intent of the passage itself.
The first thing to understand is the Rhonabwy's Dream is a parody, a satircal swipe at the habits of the day versus the grandeur of the past.
I personally think that the oxhide motif is a borrowing from Irish literature, taken well into the medieval period by the storytellers, like the theme of the Iron House in Branwen. The reason I think this is that its most famous occurence in Irish is in Togail Bruidne Da Derga, 'The Destruction of Da Derga's Hostel', which was one of the Irish tales the author of the Mabinogi definitely knew, because he echoes it repeatedly. This saga was composed around 800. There was a tremendous amount of Irish literary material passing over to Wales around this time, because learned monk-literateurs were passing through Wales on their way to Irish monastic houses on the continent, like Bobbio. (We have direct evidence of this.)
A lot of bits and pieces in Welsh literature are, I think, borrowings from Irish---not from Irish paganism, mind you---but from the actual medieval literature itself, or rather from people who knew it. The Iron House, the Watchman Device, the Glass Tower, the idea of prophetic druids (in Irish lit druids are frequent---in Welsh they are very very scarce, little more than ciphers), the characters of Manawydan and possibly Bran, and this wierd detail about the ox-hide.
The context is a broad parody---rather than being a solemn ceremony performed after the killing of a bull, by druids, in order to have a vision of a future king, our friend Rhonabwy lies down in a filthy, tumbledown, smoky shed ankle-deep in chewed up holly and cattle-piss. (Hardly 'mystic, wonderful', as Tennyson said.) It's also a satire of some of the conventions of storytelling: not just this bargain-basement bull-sleep, but the fact that the praise-poems to Arthur are so complex and obscure as to be incomprehensible, and that no one can remember the story itself 'without a book', and that time seems to be all screwed up in the inset tale: we are explicitly after Camlann, and yet there is Arthur, large as life!
It is *possible* that this ox-hide episode is a survival of a shared ritual dating back to the common celtic inheritance, but frankly I think it much more likely that this is a conscious pisstake, a twisting of an Irish literary motif---or 'topos'---that the high medieval Welsh cyfarwydds had picked up. Clearly the motif was familiarish---one has to know the Irish theme a bit in order to get the joke---that instead of a lofty vision of future lordship, Rhonabwy has a deeply ironic and pessimitic dream about how shite everything is these days. As Arthur says to him: 'I feel so sad that scum such as these are protecting this Island after such fine men that protected it in the past.'
The Tarb Fheis is almost certainly an ancient pagan practice: but we can't take this episode in the dream of Rhonabwy as evidence that it is a practice the British had shared.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Sept 1, 2009 11:02:54 GMT -1
So hands-up how many of us are "doing it for love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present" ? No really hands-up. Hand up... but I might just say love of the world And I would add to participate in a developing consensus worldview built on robust critique and honesty rather than fantasy. Otherwise I don't need any of you.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Sept 1, 2009 11:03:28 GMT -1
Hi Megli - In my more cumbersome and less appealing style I've posted the very same observations here several times before - so I couldn't agree with you more - although following a little further reflection you would, of course, have concluded that a farmhouse in Gwynedd would have be your proposed exiled destination. We're kind of doing it for love---love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present; and I'm not sure these would be easily imaginable emotions for actual Britons prior to 43AD, or Roman Britons prior to 410AD, or the last dribs and drabs of R-B pagans at the end of that same century. I can't imagine anything less conducive to a real, deepening spiritual life than a kind of revived 'do-ut-des' paganism: 'Here, Rigantona, I'll give you this offering if you help me concieve/pass this exam/buy a house'. God, even Christianity's better than that. I could rant on myself, but essentially I'd just be repeating the same points Megli makes but from my own perhaps more rural perspective (no offense intended ) I strongly believe the crux of all we're doing here is to be found in the statement Megli offers on why we're "doing it". So hands-up how many of us are "doing it for love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present" ? No really hands-up. Reading Megli's recent little illustration I'm more aware aware than ever of how little it really appeals. Even the juvenile, jealous Jehovah didn't insist Abraham finish off Isaac. To me a Brythonic path has always been more about geography than a specific blink-of-an-eye period of human history such as the iron age. A love of these islands of ours- their natural history, human history and myths and legends, and how those three things build and colour my emotional interaction with the local Spirits of Place that I have relationship with. I could bollock on but I'd only be going around in circles. So I ask this question of you, because I'm starting to feel I might have been making some mistaken assumptions? Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here? Or is that just a little too close to popular fluffy neo-paganism for comfort? So - Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here?
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Sept 1, 2009 11:06:55 GMT -1
Sorry for double posting - defeated attempt to modify my initial ravings!
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 1, 2009 11:37:45 GMT -1
Sorry for double posting - defeated attempt to modify my initial ravings! Want me to delete something?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 1, 2009 11:42:39 GMT -1
It is *possible* that this ox-hide episode is a survival of a shared ritual dating back to the common celtic inheritance, but frankly I think it much more likely that this is a conscious pisstake, a twisting of an Irish literary motif---or 'topos'---that the high medieval Welsh cyfarwydds had picked up. Clearly the motif was familiarish---one has to know the Irish theme a bit in order to get the joke---that instead of a lofty vision of future lordship, Rhonabwy has a deeply ironic and pessimitic dream about how shite everything is these days. As Arthur says to him: 'I feel so sad that scum such as these are protecting this Island after such fine men that protected it in the past.' The Tarb Fheis is almost certainly an ancient pagan practice: but we can't take this episode in the dream of Rhonabwy as evidence that it is a practice the British had shared. But here's the thing as you say, for the joke to work the theme has to be known. I'm not at this point interested in the purpose of the joke, but the mechanism, and here it's pointing to the idea that the bull sleep has be known (from wherever). Moving on from that, is it incorrect that something in Ireland is automatically exclusive of something in Britain?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 1, 2009 11:45:02 GMT -1
So - Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here?Of course it is, why wouldn't it be? But from my perspective I'm not a farmer, or a horticulturalist, or a whatever. My personal interest is human relationships with the Gods, and that's where I try to speak. It's for others to take the general lead on things that interest them personally.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Sept 1, 2009 11:58:48 GMT -1
Reserved for reply to Megli
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 1, 2009 12:09:58 GMT -1
It is *possible* that this ox-hide episode is a survival of a shared ritual dating back to the common celtic inheritance, but frankly I think it much more likely that this is a conscious pisstake, a twisting of an Irish literary motif---or 'topos'---that the high medieval Welsh cyfarwydds had picked up. Clearly the motif was familiarish---one has to know the Irish theme a bit in order to get the joke---that instead of a lofty vision of future lordship, Rhonabwy has a deeply ironic and pessimitic dream about how shite everything is these days. As Arthur says to him: 'I feel so sad that scum such as these are protecting this Island after such fine men that protected it in the past.' The Tarb Fheis is almost certainly an ancient pagan practice: but we can't take this episode in the dream of Rhonabwy as evidence that it is a practice the British had shared. But here's the thing as you say, for the joke to work the theme has to be known. I'm not at this point interested in the purpose of the joke, but the mechanism, and here it's pointing to the idea that the bull sleep has be known (from wherever). Moving on from that, is it incorrect that something in Ireland is automatically exclusive of something in Britain? It only requires a superficial familiarity, perhaps not even on the part of the audience, only on the part of the storyteller; after all, DR is the most literary---the most bookish---of all the Mabinogion tales, so this kind of sophisticated in-joke (a nod to those out there in the court with a passing familiarity with Irish literature) is not at all unlikely. No, there's no reason per se why something known in Ireland might not be known in Britain, but this is an area where great discrimination, very close attention to text, and wide knowledge of the material, both irish and welsh, are needed. We are certain that the 'Iron House' is a borrowing because it echoes the Irish tales like 'The Destruction of Dind Rig' verbally closely, suggesting a recent transmission between story-tellers, or story-experts. When you have several echoes of the SAME Irish text or family of texts in one Welsh text, it's a very good bet to say---ah, they knew this, especially when we know and can name and date real people who were going from Irish monasteries---the centres of literary production---via Welsh courts. On balance, the ox-hide thing looks like one of these to me---a sophisticated in-joke for the literati of medieval Wales. It may have been deployed non-parodically in other tales which we do not have. To give you a contrast: we are absolutely certain that Lleu and Lug are separately inherited from a shared pagan god for the following reasons. The welsh tale (4th branch) about Lleu resembles Irish post-medieval folktales much more than it does medieval Irish literary tales about Lug. This makes it likely that both the Irish Lugh folktales and the welsh Lleu story reflect a shared ancient tradition. If Lleu did something Lug does in a big Irish saga like Cath Maige Tuired, it would look much more like the Welsh had pinched the theme off the Irish. As it is, he doesn't. Second, the names were sufficiently different not to be recognisable as akin by medieval Irish and Welsh-speakers. (Lug and Lleu sound quite different, though they both derive from Lugos.) This lack of similarity made it less likely that Lug stories would get attached to Lleu, so where there IS such a similarity, we can be all the more certain that it is ancient and inherited. So there certainly WERE ancient, inherited things in common, reflecting an ancient cultural kinship---many of them, in fact; but these must be carefully disentangled from borrowings that likely took place when literateurs of both Celtic countries met in the 800s-1100s. If something whiffs of 'text'---as the oxhide does--it's suspicious.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Sept 1, 2009 12:12:07 GMT -1
[....] So now that healthcare and food aren't overwhelming questions for most people, the only real reason to pursue particular deities is because you personally love them. We want life to be given increasing savour and depth, and to give expression to the love we feel for the land and for the stories that are woven into it, and to feel that we are doing something worthwhile. We're kind of doing it for love---love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present; and I'm not sure these would be easily imaginable emotions for actual Britons prior to 43AD, or Roman Britons prior to 410AD, or the last dribs and drabs of R-B pagans at the end of that same century. Doing it for love - Yes! Of certain deities, of my personal experience of them but also the stories told about them in transformed guise in medieval romance etc, of Nature, and yes, also of the past layered in the present though I sometimes think this last one is more problematic. I'm sure you are right that most ancient Britons, as with most present Britons, were not particularly devout except perhaps as a way of conforming to social conventions and insofar as it might contribute to their personal well-being. Followers of minority religions are rarely doing it for these reasons unless its a vague lifestyle sub-culture thing in which case its more of a fashion statement than a commitment. But for me, certainly, it's doing for love or not at all. True, but should it be that much of a quandry? If enough of us find we have the same love particular gods or approached to spiritual practice or attachment to certain deposits and other material then whatever it says about us we are in a position to get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Sept 1, 2009 12:17:16 GMT -1
So hands-up how many of us are "doing it for love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present" ? No really hands-up. [....] So - Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here? YES (hands waving all over the place)
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 1, 2009 12:46:58 GMT -1
Yes! (waves hands madly too). I agree, Heron.
I think one thing that's emerged from the last couple of years is that celtic reconstructionism is a crock, because of the immensely complex, fragmented, exiguous nature of the source material. Now, I know that brython has never billed itself as a CR organisation or community, but some people here are involved with CR and we have been, as it were, operating in the same territory in part.
To speak personally, and ach but this is hard to put into words, the feeling of love and deep peace and loyalty that I get when sitting looking out to sea in cornwall, or wales, or Scotland, or walking in the woods here, has nothing to do with worshipping literary characters. Now I know that Rhiannon's NAME goes back to a goddess Rigantona, and probably her horsey associations as well, but where does that get me? You see, I also know her story has been blended with a medieval folk-theme called 'the Calumniated Wife', and that her character--vivid, verbally snappy, spirited---may have nothing to do with the ancient goddess at all---an ancient goddess of whose rites we know nothing whatsoever. So--any attempt to literalise her is like trying to catch the wind in a net.
She belongs to a realm of poetry rather than religion for me, forming a seam in the layered world where words and imagination and emotion and landscape blend. I find I am more profoundly moved by her that way than by trying to appropriate her for specifically religious purposes.
(MEGLI AT MOST OBSCURE ALERT).
It often seems to me that a good model or metaphor for what Brython might be is the poetry of david jones, strange though it is to take poetry as a metaphor for reality. If you've never read any Jones, I'm afraid this image won't help, but it's the most truthful analogy I can bring to the table. His work is composed of baffling layers and fragments, where images and ideas from theology, British myth, nature, ordinary life and the suffering of war interpentrate and reflect each other. There's no attempt to crystalise, to literalise and make leaden his metaphors; they are also profoundly steeped in a kind of mythic Welshness and in religious devotion. Everything has significance, but that significance emerges from a complex tissue of echoes and associations, and is not bludgeoned into a *system.* (Over-systematisation is one of the things that makes Yeats' celtic mysteries phase seem rather portentously daft.)
Each one of us in Brython, moved by that which moves us, is a kind of David Jones, perhaps; each one of us is living in an imaginative world which, really, rather resembles one of his poems, with its superimposed layers and gauzy transparencies, seams of meaning running like chalk beneath the turf.
Argh. I can't put it better than that, though I'd like to. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by potia on Sept 1, 2009 12:48:21 GMT -1
So hands-up how many of us are "doing it for love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present" ? No really hands-up. Yes for Love. For love of the land I live on now, for love of the myths, for love of the deities that have shown themselves to me in different ways. For love of the people I interact with on a day to day basis, for love of the world and for love of you here. Imperfect, sometimes foolish but Yes - for Love in all it's complexities.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Sept 1, 2009 14:40:36 GMT -1
Reading Megli's recent little illustration I'm more aware aware than ever of how little it really appeals. Even the juvenile, jealous Jehovah didn't insist Abraham finish off Isaac. To me a Brythonic path has always been more about geography than a specific blink-of-an-eye period of human history such as the iron age. A love of these islands of ours- their natural history, human history and myths and legends, and how those three things build and colour my emotional interaction with the local Spirits of Place that I have relationship with. I could bollock on but I'd only be going around in circles. So I ask this question of you, because I'm starting to feel I might have been making some mistaken assumptions? Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here? Or is that just a little too close to popular fluffy neo-paganism for comfort? So - Is having relationship with the natural world part of the game we're playing here? For me, it is THE primary reason. That is why I tend to delve into the scientific now and again, though not very successfully mostly, as the developing theories about the inter-related nature of the quantum universe serve as an aid to better understand the nature of my connection, both spiritually and physically, to these lands. Myth, serving as an archetype, can lead us to revelations about the nature of previous generation's connections and archaeology serves as a counter to some of the more fanciful imaginings thrown up in some neo-pagan quarters. If you read some of the more meaningful works from other religions about the nature of connection, which is what I have been doing recently, specifically from a Sufi point of view, you begin to realize the message is basically the same, the language is what creates the perceived separation, or rather the interpretation of that language. And so humanity strides to war because of a misplaced full stop or a missing word from a paragraph. It would be easy to deride the fluffy neo-paganism we all have seen at some time, but I have come to realize that it serves a purpose. It is the entrance by which we all arrived here. We instinctively "knew" that we wanted to better our understanding of our relationship with both land and any associated spirits / deities, for they have to be part of that connection, failing to understand that is akin to looking at the horizon through blinkers, you concentrate on the target but fail to see the "whole". So, stumbling through the darkness of intent, seemingly without the illumination of knowledge, we come to the unexpected, yet wonderful realization that there are others, others who hold similar aspirations. Similar, but not specifically, identical. For, as we all know, experience is subjective, thus we could not, and indeed, should not, all aspire to the same things. We all bring something unique to the table, our own experiences, perspectives and aspirations. In a world that through the marketing machine, tells us that the "I" is the most important aspect of our life, it can be difficult to shift that message, and thus we find ourselves frustrated by the actions of others, who through the insular and isolating world technology creates for us, appear to be creating friction or just being plain unreasonable. This can sometimes be more a message about our own thought patterns than any actual real events (I am not referring to any specific people or incidents with this statement). If we are determined, we see through the curtains surrounding our ideals and ideas, curtains sometimes raised by others and find the company of like minded individuals with which to share some of life's journey. If we are lucky. RR
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Sept 1, 2009 14:45:22 GMT -1
Yes! (waves hands madly too). I agree, Heron. I think one thing that's emerged from the last couple of years is that celtic reconstructionism is a crock, because of the immensely complex, fragmented, exiguous nature of the source material. Now, I know that brython has never billed itself as a CR organisation or community, but some people here are involved with CR and we have been, as it were, operating in the same territory in part. To speak personally, and ach but this is hard to put into words, the feeling of love and deep peace and loyalty that I get when sitting looking out to sea in cornwall, or wales, or Scotland, or walking in the woods here, has nothing to do with worshipping literary characters. Now I know that Rhiannon's NAME goes back to a goddess Rigantona, and probably her horsey associations as well, but where does that get me? You see, I also know her story has been blended with a medieval folk-theme called 'the Calumniated Wife', and that her character--vivid, verbally snappy, spirited---may have nothing to do with the ancient goddess at all---an ancient goddess of whose rites we know nothing whatsoever. So--any attempt to literalise her is like trying to catch the wind in a net. She belongs to a realm of poetry rather than religion for me, forming a seam in the layered world where words and imagination and emotion and landscape blend. I find I am more profoundly moved by her that way than by trying to appropriate her for specifically religious purposes. Yes I see what you mean about Rhiannon and the literary content of the tales we have. But the fact that part of the elements of the medieval story contain and international folkore motif doesn't bother me, in fact quite the contrary, it shows that it contains significance beyond that of a localised story. These motifs work or not depending on how they are used, of course, but there use here, and e.g. in Culhwch where different motifs are ingeniously combined, only adds to their appeal for me. If, furthermore, I put together the appeal of the medieval stories in PKM 1 & 3, the fact that the name Rhiannon can be shown to be a development of the Brythonic goddess Rigantona and themes that can be picked up from elsewhere such as the Scottish border ballads about Thomas of Ercildoune who is carried off to Faery by a lady on a white horse and I begin to get a cultural reinforcement for feelings and experiences I have which are responses to the natural world and interpretations of these and a bit of UPG thrown in for good measure and the whole complex begins to gell in a significant way. I could get by just on the direct experience of nature, and have separate signficant experiences that I could regard as purely literary or cultural, but it really does work for me to bring these together with the material I have cited above, more than that it seems genuinely significant and seems to provide the basis for cultural rather than simply individual practice. And I couldn't put it better than David Jones either. Significantly he regarded this material as part of his experience as a Roman Catholic. Arthur was a type of Christ as well as a vegetation deity and a Brythonic war lord, the whole Romano-British background informed his understanding of what had shaped British and European culture since those times, and what it meant to be imbued in that cultural ethos. And he too saw problems with this in the present. I love the way you imitate, in your post, his 'Domine Deus' poem with its "AH, what shall I write?" There he looked at modern articulations of religion and culture (and he hardly distinguished between them) and found "the terrible crystal a stage paste". But he persisted with his view that one proceeds from "the actually loved and known" and in this respect his art, his religion and his cultural being could not be separated. If for us it is all about the natural world we have to develop a cultural ethos that reflects that and if we find this happens to coincide with an interest in certain medieval material that means something to us because we can construe it in a certain way then that is a way forward whatever it did or didn't mean to the medieval audience or those further back in time.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Sept 1, 2009 19:38:41 GMT -1
So hands-up how many of us are "doing it for love of the natural world, love of the characters of Welsh literature, love of a palimpsestic sense of the past-layered-in-the-present" ? No really hands-up. I'll put my hands up to some of it. I must admit I'm not really interested Welsh literature. I'm interested in the spiritual world of Brython. Reconnecting to that world and to seek like minded people. The social side of me wants to be part of that tribal identity and the awkward hermit in me wants to go to the woods and never return. I'm afraid if I take the life of a hermit I'll get lost in the spiritual world. I love the natural world and spirits that are weaved amongst it. I just don't know were it begins or ends. I suppose I'm here to strengthen my relationship with the spirit world and hopefully help others. And I think in commonality we have a chance rather than having pointless arguments that others have.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 1, 2009 19:53:34 GMT -1
i had a nice long post... but lost it. so will come back soon and re do it.
|
|
|
Post by megli on Sept 2, 2009 7:06:50 GMT -1
So, stumbling through the darkness of intent, seemingly without the illumination of knowledge, we come to the unexpected, yet wonderful realization that there are others, others who hold similar aspirations. That is the most 'Bob-feline' statement I've read on here for ages!!! We certainly are stumbling through the darkness of intent. Possible also the mist of lack of knowing, and the forest of uncertainty, probing for the profound rush of shimmering clarity that we call awen, exquishite inshpiration... (just teasing RR )
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Sept 3, 2009 8:41:12 GMT -1
to jump in in defence of what we were doing there, the use of some elements of the current heathen 'model' was deliberate based upon discussions at Flag fen. the purpose being that within heathenry the concept of a community with a shared sense of belief and practice of sorts is strong. the purpose of brython was to establish the sense of the community with shared belief and practice with a foundation of shared dogma. at present nothing exists to that end and so we modelled brython slightly on the heathen model - hearths etc as we all discussed. this isnt for a religious purpose but a social and community one, we set up these aspects and then as a group/community/tribe work on the religious side of our shared beliefs.
as to taking Wiccan festivals - well, it isnt as if GG pulled them out of his arse, they have been important dates for millennia before Wicca came on the scene and as such utilising them to some extent - if relevant to us and our interaction with the landscape is perfectly valid and justifiable (see the festival discussions on Dun Brython for instance).
indeed, we 'act' out this gut instinct in us to have 'something' with the gods for other purposes, sometimes we arent too sure why just that we should be doing it. it is for each of us to re-establish this contact and for a personal motivation.
im not too convinced by this, not only is it impossible to make this judgement based upon some curse scrolls from bath but we can look at the sheer volume of valuable offerings made, the time and investment in monuments to the dead and the gods and see that as a purely physical expression of thier belief people werent just paying the insurance. would you give the bank manager a car as thanks for giving you an overdraft? aside from this we simply dont know what people did in the everyday as devotional work or thanks or simply prayer.
why not? the love of the landscape that supports you and your family? the gods that have been there for you and your ancestors from as far back as anyone can rememnber? they had stories of their gods, their ancestors their land. sure thier motivations might have been different in some respects but i dont see why not in others - they are as much human as we are today and prone to the same feelings of love and connection.
i think you are taking the actions of a few minutes and assuming that is all there is to that spiritual life. even the most devout and spiritual person may light a candle in church on a sunday and ask that Little johnny does well in his under 9's football on saturday.
i know you can be a horribly cynical git - and long may it remain that way - but i think in this rant you are possibly doing what many of us have done before, to take small isolated aspects and used it to extrapolate outwards and make a judgement on a religious life 2000 years ago when in fact we simply do not know.
|
|