Hutton's Conjecture On Linguistic Deity Origin

[Chad]

Link of relevance: www.rigantona.net/1/post/2012/02/first-post.html

This was touched upon in a previous post. However, I feel there is some merit in reopening this discussion. For the life of me, I cannot seem to find exactly WHERE on this forum this was originally mentioned... Anyhow, Ronald Hutton had suggested awhile ago that the characters in the Mabinogion, as you can all tell, this collection of tales is a favorite mention of mine, can NOT be conclusively tied to the Brythonic gods themselves.

Obvious example, Rhiannon cannot be tied to Rigatona on the sole basis of linguistics. Or, at least, this is Hutton's claim. I recall from the previous post, a member quipped, I cannot remember their exact words, but basically said that if not from the Brythonic gods, then where did the character names come from. Where, indeed? I am not in a position to match wits with Hutton, nor do I claim to be. However, through the natural evolution of language, it would make sense to me that, although one piece of evidence is seldom ever strong enough to stand on it's own, in this case, I believe it certainly is. Did the great Brythonic gods go through a "demotion" at the time of the writing of the books that became the Mabinogion? I'd bet a week's pay that they did.

This isn't surprising when a young and powerful Church may have had men who wished to preserve elements of their wealthy heritage, but, of course, would never write anything against said Church. In fact, that was the rule of the day. It would make much sense to me that Maponos would become Mabon in Cymry. Language evolves over time. Just as English has, which, in the course of time, Americans, being an ocean away from their main language, adopted different pronunciations, slightly different spelling, and different accents and dialects from their British cousins.

Although the names of the gods evolved slightly over time, I cannot imagine that Llew Law Gyffes is not Lugus. Is that based on emotion? One could argue that. However, considering the Cymry are Brythonic, I would find it on the edge of unreasonable to assume that though I believe very strongly that they honored the same gods as their fellow Brythons, that they did not name them in their own tongue.

This concludes yet another of my conjectures about the Gods. Thank you for reading! :-)

[Heron]

Hi Chad

The problem with Hutton's argument here, as I see it, is that he is coming at a subject as a general historian of which he has no specialist knowledge to see what the requirements of historical proof will yield. Furthermore he is bringing previous baggage with him as he has argued in relation to the witch cult that those claiming a continuous tradition back to the medieval cult - if such a cult existed - have no historical justification for doing so. If I understand his position correctly (though I may be mistaken) he argues this as himself an adherent of the modern witch cult and so one who I suppose believes that it has to stand on the basis of what it is now rather than what it might have been.

Translating this position to a consideration of the evidence for the pagan origins of characters in The Mabinogion he presumably feels that the same arguments apply. But he its not a linguist and is arguing in contradiction of specialist linguists (not neo-pagans) who have identified the linguistic origins of the names. So I think he is misguided in doing this, but his point as an historian is that there is not sufficient proof to make a watertight case for the continuity of these names into the medieval stories.

The argument on the Rigantona site does not necessarily dispute that, but argues that it is not necessary to have that sort of absolute proof to regard the medieval stories as stories which feature remnant gods. That is, we know that the names of these characters can be tracked back to Brythonic forms, some of which such as Rigantona ('Great Queen') only make sense as god names, and others, such as Maponos, who are well attested as gods in records from Antiquity.

This underwrites, rather than validates on its own, the perception of the stories these characters inhabit which reveal their god-natures. That is, gods can inhabit stories whether they are named as gods in those stories or not. But the linguistic underwriting does raise the question of continuity. Did they retain part of their god natures in folklore etc and became part of these stories because of the use of folklore as good story material, or are the stories conscious re-telling of myths? I think the best answer to that is the one advanced by the Celtic scholar Patrick Ford who says that they are not stories that are retold as myths but it is unlikely that the re-tellers were not aware of the mythological origins of the material they were using. He also argues that the stories contain, in addition to characters who originated as gods, story lines that reflect mythological events.

That is good enough for me. But I don't see it so much as the gods being 'demoted' as that they function differently in these stories than they might have done in lost earlier stories about them. So we don't need to take the stories themselves as sacrosanct, but can be inspired by them to develop our own practice.

[Chad]

I didn't know he was another guy claiming an unbroken line of witches... I read on PaganSpace a discussion on the "Burning Times", by yet another revisionist claiming all of the accused and burned were actually witches... Some even claim were part of the unbroken witch cult. I knew the site didn't agree with Hutton, I just wanted to post a relevant link.

To me, with so few resources on Brythonic Paganism, I find it extreme displeasing to read misinformation like that. Although I am proud to call myself a Pagan, I am ashamed of those in the Pagan/Neopagan, or what have you, community attempting to rewrite history. I was into a Wicca-like form of spirituality, but I still knew that it is a recent form of spirituality. It just eventually fell out of favor with me. Not because of its age, just I couldn't entirely get into it. To me, the Wiccan Rede wasn't making sense, since you have to harm to love, and I never quite believed in the Threefold Law. There's nothing wrong with those things, they just didn't resonate with me for long. I believe in doing right for its own sake, and avoiding wrong for the same reason.

Then I read into Celtic Paganism, but I only found info on the Gaelic aspects. It's wonderful stuff, but I got kind of a "I'm just a notch short of where I need to be.". Then I learned about the Brythonic side, and it was as if I already knew who these gods were, their names started sticking with me. In Cymry, for some reason. Even gods that are Brythonic, but not tied much to the Mabinogion, I thought of in Cymry names, Beli and Taran, for example. I still can't get the Brythonic gods out of my head! I am constantly contemplating them. Mabon is another favorite of mine, and of course Llew Law Gyffes. Don is another.

Their names just strike me a certain way. I hardly knew anything of Brythonic gods until recently. But, I still remember their names as if I just read them. Not all of them, but a couple handfuls. Coming from someone who barely remembers what he did when he woke up earlier in the day, I'm impressed with myself. Haha

Anyway, thank you for the added perspective, and for teaching me something I didn't know about Hutton.

[Heron]

Apr 5, 2013 16:34:17 GMT -1 Chad said:

I didn't know he was another guy claiming an unbroken line of witches... I read on PaganSpace a discussion on the "Burning Times", by yet another revisionist claiming all of the accused and burned were actually witches... Some even claim were part of the unbroken witch cult. I knew the site didn't agree with Hutton, I just wanted to post a relevant link.

Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but I was saying that he doesn't support the unbroken line claim, and suggesting that this view affected his approach to the Mabinogion material, making him tend to deny the connection between the stories and earlier mythology.

[Chad]

Oh, my apologies. I was about to say... Not Hutton too! Thank you for clearing that up. I think a discussion last night on another site triggered that response. To me, the linguistic connection makes sense. I just wanted to bring that discussion to the fore. With the shortage of solid, concrete historical proof on some of the subjects within pre Christian religions in Europe, there will always, unless such proof is discovered, be speculation and debate. I think as long as it's lively, and done in a respectful manner, it's healthy. On the site I was on last night, even though historical research was on the side of those of us debunking the nature of "The Burning Times", there was a lot of mudslinging and belittling of the other side, which does nothing for anyone. It was surprising, considering the intelligent, and otherwise cordial people participating in the fanfare.

I found myself apologising for those people more than educating. Anyway, I'm very happy that I haven't seen that on this site. That instead, it has been a treasure trove of knowledge that I had searched so long for. Due to this, I hope that activity picks up again on this site. Because there is simply too much information and respectful discussion for this site to go "dead". If anyone I meet is interested in either knowing about, or interested in Brythonic Paganism, I will refer them here.