|
Post by Francis on Jun 15, 2007 11:05:29 GMT -1
He is the king of Smug and affectation - Its called a radio not a wireless you nutter And what is wrong pray with calling one's receiver a 'wireless'? I do and I'm not all that old. There again I still call a TV a 'Television' and listen to The Archers... It's called a radio not a wireless you nutter Craig, and take off that cravat and boater. Personally I think Jenny should ditch Brian Aldridge and screw him for every penny he's got. I'm sure Adam and Debbie would back him. Alice has the right idea for once... hasn't it gone quiet in here? No way would Adam and Debbie back Jenny to leave Brian. It's bad enough that the share of Home Farm they were going to inherit's now got to be sharred with Rory, but to watch Brian walk off with half now -all to become Rorys, and them only get a third of what Jennys left with. No way - Adams worked far too hard with the strawberries and deer, and Debbies far to practical a slave to her future wealth. Sh*t - I mean what are you talking about? I've no idea. I just like sitting with the trees. I never listen to the wireless
|
|
|
Post by Midori on Jun 15, 2007 11:40:41 GMT -1
Oi! Quit giving away the plotlines for the Archers!
|
|
|
Post by Craig on Jun 15, 2007 11:54:57 GMT -1
It's a lot more interesting than Hutton-mania.
I liked Siobhan and never saw what she found to love about Brian.
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Jun 15, 2007 12:03:29 GMT -1
Ronald Hutton is the Priest (High Priest?) of a Wiccan coven so he seems to be hedging his bets on all sides. He is/was also a member the obod Dobunni Grove, hedging his bets indeed.
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jun 15, 2007 12:08:37 GMT -1
Oi! Quit giving away the plotlines for the Archers! What's the Archers? -- Jez
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Jun 15, 2007 12:08:47 GMT -1
I read half the book so far, I find it strange that Hutton is a member of OBOD and has finished all 3 grades but debunks the druidry of which is in the gwers. Intriguing. I seem to remember not so very long ago wasn't he big pals with PCG? As far as I know he still is, Hutton also burrowed some of the archives from OBOD for the research of his book. I loved to be a fly on the wall when them 2 are having a conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jun 15, 2007 14:34:31 GMT -1
I've not read the book, only reviews, but get the impression that Hutton isn't debunking modern druidry - just making it clear that it's not really related to ancient druidry. For all that, I think he comes out saying that the modern stuff is quite nice really...
I agree completely that PCG is far more influential than Bobcat. However, she is far more photogenic and media-friendly, while PCG just gets on quietly with whatever he's doing. To the pagan friendly public, BC will be a familiar face. While I don't personally get anything out of the OBOD stuff, it's been amazingly successful. The link between OBOD and Wicca (The Nichols and Gardner partnership) means that the OBOD material is very compatible with the general thrust of wiccan-esque modern paganism and is therefore far more mainstream and influential.
|
|
|
Post by claer on Jun 15, 2007 15:40:18 GMT -1
I've haven't yet read the book carefully yet but I point out the following passage (p197); "By the end of the 1990s, Restall Orr was the most famous Druidess in the world; certainly the first since antiquity to occupy such an influential position and perhaps the first of all time. In the first years of the new century, she left th BDO to establish an organisation unequivocally under, or responsive to, her own guidance, the Druid Network." My italics. Stephen I think that this quote needs to be read in the context of the whole paragraph it is in. What is being discussed is the role of women as "leaders" (for want of a better word) in druidry. In that context, I interpretted that Hutton was trying to say he thinks that BC is the most influential female Druid (he uses the word Druidess instead) - not the most influential druid. Just the way I read it. I was a bit disappointed with the book myself, and plus the cover makes it look a bit naff.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jun 15, 2007 16:39:40 GMT -1
Hi Claer Yes- I'm sure you're right that Hutton is referring to Druidesses- But I was under the perhaps incorrect impression that the Druid priesthood of the ancients included both sexes? Little Raven refers above to at least one druidess of ancient times of certainly quite some influence... I've got so used to using the word druid to refer to priests of both sexes that I was perhaps a bit careless with my language. Definitely my mistake. Sorry if I've wasted anyone's time on that! However I still defend my incredulity at his statement. Is Bobcat really the most or potentially the most influential female druid of all time? Well perhaps if she shuffles of this mortal coil and we end up with a new place of druid pilgrimage in Wessex, or the forthcoming book on pagan ethics becomes some form of fossilised pagan cannon law for generations of pagans to come, he may yet prove to be right... Blessings Stephen
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jun 15, 2007 16:48:52 GMT -1
Don't forget them ladies that scared the bejeezus out o'the Roman lads at Menai either. I assume their reputation preceded them.
|
|
|
Post by claer on Jun 15, 2007 17:29:30 GMT -1
Hi Claer Yes- I'm sure you're right that Hutton is referring to Druidesses- But I was under the perhaps incorrect impression that the Druid priesthood of the ancients included both sexes? Little Raven refers above to at least one druidess of ancient times of certainly quite some influence... Blessings Stephen Hi Stephen, I was surpried when I read it that Hutton made use of the word "druidess". I've always taken it that Druid = both sexes and "Druidess" was a modern word, and not one used much. Not sure where I got that from though. Throughout the book he mainly mentions men, with Stephanie Carr-Gomm and Veronica Hammond getting very brief mentions. Those scary ladies on the shores of the Menai Straits get a mention on p3-4 with Hutton saying they gave the [druid] resistence a feminist dimension [really?]...and that's it. But then he said this book was a history of modern and not ancient druidry. Hutton also mentions that this is book one of two - and is the less academic of the two planned. Maybe he was pandering to the mainstream pagan audience, Blackbird mentioned. I suppose to some BC is seen as the most influential female druid - within their sphere. How many bother to read beyond modern pagan writing? Claer
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jun 15, 2007 19:02:48 GMT -1
After a brief bit of research (thank you PB Ellis!, the famous druidess was called Veleda - however, she is not specifically called a druid, but a "virgin prophetess". She is mentioned by both Tacitus and Dio Cassius. (Her name is probably a title, as Vel- is cognate with gwel (to see), same type of words as 'fili'.
She was chosen to arbitrate between the Tencterians and Grippinians of the Rhine, along with Claudius Civilis. She seems to have inspired (or courted) much veneration - for the purposes of the negotiations, she took to a high tower from which a relative relayed messages. The ambassadors were the only people allowed to visit her in person.
He also gives us (bear in mind that Ellis isn't always trustworthy though!) from the writings of Aelius Lampridius, a piece about a Druidess foretelling the defeat of Alexander Severus before his expedition of 235CE: "Go forth but hope not for victory nor put your trust in your warriors."
There is another example concerning the Emperor Aurelianus, who consulted 'Gaulish Druidesses' for information on whether his children would retain the imperial crown. (They said no...)
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jun 16, 2007 7:54:31 GMT -1
Thanks BB. It occurs to me that once upon a time PB Ellis was heaped with the enthusiasm that people are now directing at Hutton over this book. Oh how fickle people are.
The Veleda passage in her tower always reminds me of Thorbjorg and her 'high seat'. Any comment Jez?
Yes, these passages demonstarte people who very clearly have a *great* deal of influence on the people of their time. I really don't think that kind of influence can be equated to attending meetings with English Heritage on whether neo-Druids are allowed in past the fence is in the same league. Not to denigrate Emma, but please let's be realsitic here.
I would also suspect that these passages may be ignored by an academic seeking empirical proof. If they are not named as Druidesses then I suspect they are overlooked. But as Druids were proscribed by Rome, Romans writing about Romans would hardly write about Romans using proscribed 'barabarians' for diplomatic purposes. Using the phrase 'virgin prophetess' is essentially equating them with the Vestal Virgins, demonstrating that something similar exists in the barbarian lands further justifying the motivation of 'civilising' them! Double whammy!
As the Empire progresses and more barbarians are elevated to positions of power, the stigma of being of barabarian origin diminishes. This may well account for why consulting Druidesses becomes acceptable, but we would need to know the actual phrase used before translation to attempt to justify that as a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jun 16, 2007 10:02:45 GMT -1
The only exact translation that Ellis gives is for the piece about Aurelianus - the women are specifically called Gaulish Druidesses (Gallicanas Dryades). Not sure about the others... probably best to go back to the original sources rather than relying on Ellis... I've come unstuck doing that before
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jun 16, 2007 20:40:45 GMT -1
High seat needs to be seen in the context of people where only maybe the head of the household had a chair, rather than a place at a bench.
The high seat that was made for the seeress was simply a chair with a feather cushion, nothing more.
If you ever go to a seidr session, then sit real low. The floor is my personal favourite, but then, I am not supposed to be going off anywhere, if I'm singing for it...
--
Jez - who has absolutely no desire to walk the seeress path.
|
|
|
Post by Sìle on Jun 17, 2007 20:55:52 GMT -1
I did notice an interesting comment in this book: he is doing this version for those who find his usual books "too hard". So, there is to be a follow-up in his usual style. So, is this just become a bit of cash cow thing or what?
|
|
|
Post by arth_frown on Jun 18, 2007 9:51:45 GMT -1
I did notice an interesting comment in this book: he is doing this version for those who find his usual books "too hard". So, there is to be a follow-up in his usual style. So, is this just become a bit of cash cow thing or what? A cash cow indeed, but what happens when the cow runs out of milk? You write about in a slightly different way. The book has been become a bit boring now debunk this, debunking that,. How about something that is actually true.
|
|
|
Post by Sìle on Jun 18, 2007 18:43:57 GMT -1
A cash cow indeed, but what happens when the cow runs out of milk? You write about in a slightly different way. Well. Sort of. The book out at the moment is part one of a two part series. The second book being more "in depth" than the first, so it is not essentially different from his other works, but I did not see any indication of this in reviews or promotional materials. I would rather have waited for the second book.
|
|
|
Post by Sìle on Jun 21, 2007 22:04:44 GMT -1
The Independent published a review today. It can be found here.
|
|