|
|
Post by redraven on Apr 19, 2009 7:24:43 GMT -1
I was recently reading a book when the following was brought to my attention... "When the Celts overran the shrine at Delphi in 279 BCE, the Celtic leader Brennus laughed at the Greek anthropormorphic images of their Gods." (The Library of History, XXII, 9.4, Diodorus Siculus)
Further studying has shown that it is thought of to be extremely doubtful whether Brennus actually got anywhere near Delphi by a lot of historians, so taking the potential historical inaccuracy to one side, could the actual attitude been shown by Brennus represent actual "theology" of the time.
Well, we know that it wasn't until Roman occupation here that the Gods identities began to be recorded and a lot of these were subject to Romanization in the interpretation of their names. It is entirely possible that the modern names are actually corruptions of the original names because of the language problems. Many images depicting local deities have no names and as such, will probably never be known.
So, does the fact that we have images without title point to a prevelant theology present here and elsewhere? Why would there be no title afforded?
Well, the concept of interaction with the Gods used by many civilizations lean't heavily upon the "reward" concept, a barter type system whereas you gave something of value and hoped that you would receive something back, hopefully of immediate value to you, either in the form of material gain or favourable growing conditions for the provision of food and the likes.
It could be argued that this concept was so successful that it led indirectly, to the reward based "modern" economy used today to measure material wealth.
The Abrahamic religions, because of their monotheistic outlook and evangelizing philosophy, gained by linking the name of their God with the "successes" of economic and military gains. Of course, they were not unusual in this, as these sort of actions were common amongst earlier civilizations too, but not on quite such a large scale, usually gains were on a much more smaller "local" scale.
And this maybe the crux of the matter as to why the anthropormorphising of the Gods came at a later date here in Britain. (Of course I am aware of earlier traditions who did anthropormorphise their deities, for example the Egyptians, but I am trying to deal with Britain here.)
It may be that it wasn't until population numbers increased to such proportions that the need for a common identity arose. Isolated communities dealt with local conditions and local deities would possibly be viewed as not so much representing a human form, but more of an aspect of the nature of the environment. So, we have images that are shown to be in animal form, such as Boar, Stags, etc as opposed to the classical human form of say, Apollo.
Early art depicts animal form as opposed to human form so does the anthropormorphising of deity represent advancement or the loss of a more "basic" type of interaction? And does the naming of what was thought of as the underlying power of such successes represent evolution of said deities or is it more representative of human social evolution?
RR
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 19, 2009 18:26:07 GMT -1
Well, we know that it wasn't until Roman occupation here that the Gods identities began to be recorded and a lot of these were subject to Romanization in the interpretation of their names. It is entirely possible that the modern names are actually corruptions of the original names because of the language problems. RR Simply not true. Can you name one 'modern name' (i.e. Celtic deity name recorded on an otherwise Latin inscription) that is 'corrupt'?! ('Corrupt' in what sense, anyway? Misspelled? Given a mistaken Latin etymology?!). What is 'Romanisation in the interpretation of their names'? The Romano-Celtic theonyms I'm familiar with are usual Cetic words given Roman case endings, which were very similar to the Celtic ones anyway: e.g. writing Belenus or Maponus when the 'pure' Celtic forms were actually Belenos and Maponos. This is an entirely trivial change, far far less extreme than what we do to Greek names, for example (we write Achilles instead of Akhilleus, Aeschylus instead of Aiskhulos.) |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 20, 2009 7:51:27 GMT -1
Well, we know that it wasn't until Roman occupation here that the Gods identities began to be recorded and a lot of these were subject to Romanization in the interpretation of their names. It is entirely possible that the modern names are actually corruptions of the original names because of the language problems. RR Simply not true. Can you name one 'modern name' (i.e. Celtic deity name recorded on an otherwise Latin inscription) that is 'corrupt'?! ('Corrupt' in what sense, anyway? Misspelled? Given a mistaken Latin etymology?!). What is 'Romanisation in the interpretation of their names'? The Romano-Celtic theonyms I'm familiar with are usual Cetic words given Roman case endings, which were very similar to the Celtic ones anyway: e.g. writing Belenus or Maponus when the 'pure' Celtic forms were actually Belenos and Maponos. This is an entirely trivial change, far far less extreme than what we do to Greek names, for example (we write Achilles instead of Akhilleus, Aeschylus instead of Aiskhulos.) I think what RR is referring to is primarily the method of the Interpretatio Romano rather than the names themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 20, 2009 11:47:43 GMT -1
So I gather, but so what? With a Romano-British name like Sulis-Minerva, all the IR means is that the Celtic name was Sulis ('Eye' or 'Sun') and Latin speakers (or Latin-British bilinguals) thought she was a bit like Minerva. Adding a Roman name doesn't obscure or corrupt or destroy the Celtic name. Just call on Sulis if you want the 'proper British'. The Romans--and the Greeks, incidentally--usually didn't like writing down the funny names of foreign gods, so the IR is just a kind of lazy shorthand. If they'd got deep into India we would have had inscriptions from Romanised communties to Mars-Rudra, Jupiter-Indra and Bacchus-Krishna.
My point is that the 'modern' names are *not* corruptions of the original names, and that there aren't language problems of this type. Brythonic reconstructionism is not short of problems with regard to the gods (e.g. Blodeuwedd was almost certainly never a pagan goddess) but the problematic nature of the IR is basically a mirage.
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Apr 20, 2009 15:23:36 GMT -1
Well, we know that it wasn't until Roman occupation here that the Gods identities began to be recorded and a lot of these were subject to Romanization in the interpretation of their names. It is entirely possible that the modern names are actually corruptions of the original names because of the language problems. RR Simply not true. Can you name one 'modern name' (i.e. Celtic deity name recorded on an otherwise Latin inscription) that is 'corrupt'?! ('Corrupt' in what sense, anyway? Misspelled? Given a mistaken Latin etymology?!). What is 'Romanisation in the interpretation of their names'? The Romano-Celtic theonyms I'm familiar with are usual Cetic words given Roman case endings, which were very similar to the Celtic ones anyway: e.g. writing Belenus or Maponus when the 'pure' Celtic forms were actually Belenos and Maponos. This is an entirely trivial change, far far less extreme than what we do to Greek names, for example (we write Achilles instead of Akhilleus, Aeschylus instead of Aiskhulos.) Actually a good example of how the written word is open to more misinterpretations than actual face to face communication. If you are telling me that every word used has been faithfully recorded and not subject to different interpretations then I will alter that particular paragraph accordingly. If that is not the case then the statement stands. I do not doubt that what you have written is correct and would not presume to even contemplate entering into a discussion about the correct meaning, you are far more knowledgable about such matters. However, you may have noticed that I chose to post this subject in the theology section and not any other section more appropriate for factual discussions. That particular section was put there merely to show when mass inscriptions became prevelent under Roman direct rule and how previously it was not thought to be either prudent or even neccessary (unless, of course, I am mistaken, feel free to correct me.) My whole point to this thread is contained in the first paragraph and it is with this in mind the rest of the piece should be interpreted. The idea that some European civilizations thought anthropormorphising the Gods to be an unusual or unnecessary practice, is an interesting potential theology, and on a personal level, actually close to some of my own experiences. I was interested, and still am, to discover the thoughts, if any, of others here. RR |
|
|
|
Post by potia on Apr 20, 2009 18:49:11 GMT -1
Personally I think it's highly likely that there would have been a range of opinions and practices on this in the past just as there are now. It maybe that in our ancient pagan past the idea of creating a common image of a deity and thereby fixing that deity in a single form would have been very unusual until the romans came. It's possible that some gods were thought of very much in human terms but perhaps not with a fixed appearance. Others may have been thought of more as natural phenomena and not given human charateristics.
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 20, 2009 20:48:42 GMT -1
I'm not sure, RR, what you meant by 'subject to different interpretations'. I'm not being obtuse--I genuinely don't understand what you mean.
As far as I can see, the ancient Celts had a pantheon of various gods imagined in human or semi-human form --varying between peoples--consisting of more gods than goddesses and consisting of a number of 'familar faces': thunder gods, war gods, craft goddesses, river goddesses, healing gods, and so on. I see no sense in which the Celtic peoples were particularly theologically innovative in comparision to their Indo-European relatives, such as the Indic, Greek, Germanic or Roman peoples. Like almost everyone else they thought in terms of River Mother and Big Thunder Daddy, visualised as immortal, powerful, 'big' people.
I dislike the idea that 'the Celts didn't have anthropomorphic gods!' which is becoming a neo-pagan meme. Of course they did. Gods like Maponos ('Divine Boy') are obviously imagined in quasi-human form, like people on a large scale in the old-fashioned Indo-European model. (How do you tell a myth--which the Celts obviously had--without gods being imagined in quasi-human form?!) Thre idea that the Celts were somehow different--that they didn't (unlike their ancestral culture and all the cultures around them) imagine human-shaped gods--is just the ghastly 19th century 'Spiritual Celt' stereotype recycled in a form more acceptable to modern Pagans. After all, of all the gods of the ancient world, the only one that makes a fuss about being without human form/desires and being mysteriously named is--of course--Yahweh. The idea that a deity being nameless and unconfined in form is 'superior' to anthropomorphism is pure Old Testament Yahwism projected onto an alien archaeological and historical record on which it emphatically does not fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 20, 2009 20:51:12 GMT -1
PS and pre the Roman conquest, the British didn't have inscriptions *cos they didn't have writing!*
It's not a theological issue, it's one of technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegernacus on Apr 20, 2009 21:16:06 GMT -1
my 2p is worth even less in this recession, but for what it's worth: I'd have to agree with Megli. They might have imagined their gods as people, animals, or mixtures - but I would think they certainly did. There's that Roman passage (probably propaganda) about a celtic grove with effigies carved into the treetrunks - if not gods then what? Ancestors maybe, but by carving them you are visualising them directly in certain ways.
So to answer RR's original question, I think it's the other way around - Iron-age societies DID anthropormorphise their gods, whether Celtic, Roman, Greek, Indian, Native American etc etc. The loss of this form is a CE thing, based on the Christian "big formless boss in the sky" (although they get around it by backdoor-anthropormorphising him as Jesus on a cross.. go figure)
The question is: did pre-Iron age cultures do it? Did the Neolithic people visualise their gods in that way? Or were their gods the Sun, and The Moon, and the Stars, who had form already? Who knows...
|
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 21, 2009 1:52:24 GMT -1
Yeah- the tree trunk passage is in Lucan's Pharsalia, and the description of the effigies sounds just like some of the Iron Age wooden sculptures which we do have from a Celtic context (pictures in Hutton's Pagan Religions.) I see no good reason not to take them as carved images of gods, though that's not the only thing they could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 21, 2009 7:30:20 GMT -1
I dislike the idea that 'the Celts didn't have anthropomorphic gods!' which is becoming a neo-pagan meme. Which is understandable really, with the eclectic nature of neo-paganism the idea of non-anthropomorphic deity is ideal as it removes the requirement for cultural origins. Same as the increasing rise of animistic perspectives, it completely removes the original cultural perspective as a modern requirement. After all, of all the gods of the ancient world, the only one that makes a fuss about being without human form/desires and being mysteriously named is--of course--Yahweh. The idea that a deity being nameless and unconfined in form is 'superior' to anthropomorphism is pure Old Testament Yahwism projected onto an alien archaeological and historical record on which it emphatically does not fit. Out of interest, do you know when the Zeus (white beardy guy in the sky) image was first used to represent Yahweh? |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 21, 2009 7:51:20 GMT -1
I was recently reading a book when the following was brought to my attention... "When the Celts overran the shrine at Delphi in 279 BCE, the Celtic leader Brennus laughed at the Greek anthropormorphic images of their Gods." (The Library of History, XXII, 9.4, Diodorus Siculus) I've struggled with this passage for many years, and my interpretation has varied as I consider various viewpoints. Firstly, did Brennus sack Delphi? If not, then you need to consider why some reported it as such? If he did, why was it 'covered up'? Both considerations have pros can cons to me. Most significant to me is this image of Brennus laughing at the statues. There *has* to be a reason for writing that. Is it simply a device to highlight the difference between Barbarians and Romans? Entirely possible, but there was enough trade through Europe for educated and influential men to contradict if the writings if they were seen to wrong. If the Gauls didn't think in anthropomorphic terms, then as has been stated it's against the evidence we do have. What we cannot know is whether they believed *actual* or *representational* anthropomorphism. |
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Apr 21, 2009 7:56:21 GMT -1
Personally I think it's highly likely that there would have been a range of opinions and practices on this in the past just as there are now. I think that entirely likely. Consider the differences in understandings of the gods in the Greeks for example. In fact, consider the Druid at the shoulder of the king to the hermit in the woods, it's distinctly possible this represented different philospohical perspectives. But also consider that if Druids had a controlling hold over religion, that they did indeed ideally go to Britain to be trained, and Mon was the centre of that, then there is a potential implication of a common theological system. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Apr 21, 2009 12:12:51 GMT -1
If the Gauls didn't think in anthropomorphic terms, then as has been stated it's against the evidence we do have. What we cannot know is whether they believed *actual* or *representational* anthropomorphism. Thank you, that's the distinction I've been trying to tease out in my mind. Anthropomorphic can surely refer to any number of levels of representaion, from the purely physical representaions, through tohaving human minds and emotions and intentionality and ultimately to saying, asif actually and fully human but more powerful. |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 21, 2009 12:42:42 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.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Apr 21, 2009 12:46:16 GMT -1
taken in that way, i can see why Brennus would laugh. i always struggle with imagery of the gods and though i do want to have some form of statuary included in personal shrines i have a nightmare trawling the shite out there. blathered on about it and my thoughts on the matter on my blog recently. so yep - i know what Brennus was laughing about  |
|
|
|
Post by megli on Apr 21, 2009 12:54:46 GMT -1
|
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Apr 21, 2009 17:23:19 GMT -1
I'm not sure, RR, what you meant by 'subject to different interpretations'. I'm not being obtuse--I genuinely don't understand what you mean. I am actually thinking about how their experiences would have been different to a Roman or Greek interpretation. The inference of the piece I was reading was that a Celtic interaction between their Gods and people would have been more in a "direct revelation" type of interaction with a face to face interaction between the individual, his/her priest and the God invoked. The notion that the experience could be accurately conveyed by the medium of writing may have been lost to them. I dislike the idea that 'the Celts didn't have anthropomorphic gods!' which is becoming a neo-pagan meme. Of course they did. Gods like Maponos ('Divine Boy') are obviously imagined in quasi-human form, like people on a large scale in the old-fashioned Indo-European model. (How do you tell a myth--which the Celts obviously had--without gods being imagined in quasi-human form?!) Thre idea that the Celts were somehow different--that they didn't (unlike their ancestral culture and all the cultures around them) imagine human-shaped gods--is just the ghastly 19th century 'Spiritual Celt' stereotype recycled in a form more acceptable to modern Pagans. After all, of all the gods of the ancient world, the only one that makes a fuss about being without human form/desires and being mysteriously named is--of course--Yahweh. The idea that a deity being nameless and unconfined in form is 'superior' to anthropomorphism is pure Old Testament Yahwism projected onto an alien archaeological and historical record on which it emphatically does not fit. I'm not actually suggesting such a thing as a "superior" Celtic race, that would be nothing but a self obsessed flight of fancy with no basis in fact. It's just the suggestion of a different type of interaction used by the different civilizations that I find interesting and, for me, it is interesting development mirroring some of my own experiences. RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Apr 21, 2009 17:35:28 GMT -1
I've struggled with this passage for many years, and my interpretation has varied as I consider various viewpoints. Firstly, did Brennus sack Delphi? If not, then you need to consider why some reported it as such? If he did, why was it 'covered up'? Both considerations have pros can cons to me. Most significant to me is this image of Brennus laughing at the statues. There *has* to be a reason for writing that. Is it simply a device to highlight the difference between Barbarians and Romans? Entirely possible, but there was enough trade through Europe for educated and influential men to contradict if the writings if they were seen to wrong. If the Gauls didn't think in anthropomorphic terms, then as has been stated it's against the evidence we do have. What we cannot know is whether they believed *actual* or *representational* anthropomorphism. Yes, putting aside the historical doubts, it's the proposed actions that are at the crux of that piece that are mentioned and the reason they have been left in when there would have been probably more political gain to be had by concentrating upon the sacking of Delphi that interests me. RR |
|
