|
Post by Heron on Dec 29, 2011 23:12:02 GMT -1
Was Iolo Morganwg the first Brythonic Reconstructionist?
Discuss
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 1, 2012 22:19:17 GMT -1
So what is the evidence?
Iolo - aka Edward Williams - was a Welsh-speaking stonemason who taught himself to read early Welsh manuscripts, many of which were considered unreadable by the owners of the great houses in which many of them had been kept for centuries. He immersed himself in old lore of all kinds, wrote poetry in English and in Welsh, and in particular he found he could imitate and produce his own versions of the medieval poems in the old manuscripts.
He set himself the task of reconstituting ‘old Wales’ which meant going back to the time of the druids. There had been other attempts during the eighteenth century to set up druid orders but when Iolo set up his, he claimed he was heir to a genuine tradition going back to the ancient druids and there were only two people alive who were the direct heirs to this tradition, one of whom was, of course, Iolo himself. He held ceremonies on Primrose Hill in London during a brief period when he was living there and later, back in Wales, he set up the Gorsedd which still safeguards traditional Welsh literary culture today.
So was he attempting a reconstruction of Brythonic religion as well as preserving cultural traditions? Certainly not quite in the way modern pagans think of doing this. His religious affilition was Unitarian and he projected many of his radical Unitarian values onto his contemporary druid ideology. He claimed, for instance, that the original druids were pacifists and he also referred to druidism as “the patriarchal religion of Ancient Britain” seeing it as a sort of primitive version of christianity without the overlay of the clericalism which he criticised in contemporary religion.
Unlike modern re-cons who tend to take what they want from (sometimes outdated) scholarship and fill in with their own interpretations and ‘UPG’, Iolo knew all there was to know himself and thought he also knew what should fill the gaps in what was not known. That is, he felt himself justified in manufacturing what ought to be there, or what would be there if only it had survived. And he had the talent and the ability to fill these gaps convincingly. What annoyed later scholars was not just that he had forged some of his own sources, but that it was often difficult to separate what had been forged from what was genuine as it was not easily possible to tell them apart.
Thinking about such things enables us to clarify our own position with regard to reconsructionism. Some re-cons claim to be able to ‘interpret’ the real or hidden meanings of medieval texts such as those translated in The Mabinogion. Or to be able to extrapolate from scraps of archaeological evidence or the accounts of classical authors. Such aspirations reflect the attempts of previous generations of scholars to discover the mythological origins of ‘corrupted’ medieval stories, while modern scholars tend to prefer to see these texts on their own terms as aspects of medieval culture.
I have suggested before, both here and on my blog, that we shouldn’t get fixated on seeking the ‘real’ meaning of surviving artefacts for the ancient Britons. We should, rather, use such artefeacts, from whatever period of the past they survive, as points of inspiration to develop our own practice and to discover what is alive for us today rather than to attempt to revive one meaning from an ever-changing past that itself had many meanings. Which is not to say that the past is not important for us. It was, after all, the present when it was happening for our ancestors. It would be disrespectful to them to invent a life for them, as Iolo did, and many still try to do. But we can imagine one by making their lives live in our own practice. But we should never forget that there were many different pasts but, in the end, there has only ever been, and can only ever be, one present. So let us live imaginatively in that eternal present with the gods to guide us.
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Jan 2, 2012 8:22:36 GMT -1
I have never read Iolo as his reputation preceeded him I'm afraid, though strangely I find myself thinking kindly on him... From what others have said it seems that although his methods were deceptive and somewhat suspect, he did it with a passion and certain sincerity (if that can be said of such a situation!) Maybe oneday I'll read some of his words myself!
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 2, 2012 10:41:56 GMT -1
I wouldn't say Iolo was the first Brythonic reconstructionist, however, I would say that he was the probably the first "well known" one through his later largely discredited interpretations. Which leads us to the thorny issue of the "truth" as you have mentioned here Heron. The "truth", it would appear to me, is as fluid as a liquid, you may be able to see it, but it is almost impossible to pin it down and compartmentalize it as convienently as we now tend to try to store information. I believe there to be aspects of the truth in almost all information, however, if we are looking for the truth that is 100% "pure", I doubt myself such a thing exists or even has ever existed. So if there is no "pure" truth, what can we gauge about such a concept? Well, if there are indeed aspects of truth in almost all information, then the ability of the mind to process this information and store it, means that the larger the database of information gained, then logically, the greater the number of aspects of the truth being present in an individuals mind. I don't believe myself, that there is yet a mind capable of correlating all this information into one "great truth", therefore, if such a thing is unlikely to exist, then the breakdown of the truth into a fragmentary and splintered framework makes more sense. Small parts spead thinly as opposed to to a concentrated section, so to speak. And it is this idea of smaller pieces of the truth being out there in greater numbers. available to a wider number of individuals, that allows one to engage on a personal level with concepts and ideas of other beings, human and non human. This leads one to allow the mind to engage in creative activity, much as Iolo did, and it may well indicate that it is the spark from small sections of the truth that is responsible for the evolution of humanity as opposed to some grandiose all encompasing grand truth that is out there "waiting to be discovered" so to speak.
RR
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2012 15:29:35 GMT -1
Nice to know this about Iolo Morganwg. He's someone I have meant to find out more about as have only known him as an eccentric character who forged manuscripts.
The bit about there were many different pasts is a good insight.
|
|