from James Rattue:
>In fact, I concluded, even the assumption that there was a single 'Celtic' 
>experience was unjustified (though understandable given the state of the 
>research), let alone simply assuming that the history of holy wells in 
>England was exactly the same as in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Man, and 
>Cornwall.

I would say that the assumption that there was a single Celtic anything is 
erroneous: from the common beginnings and roots, there evolved different 
languages and associated cultures in response to various influences and 
historical developments. However, there also are common characteristics and 
approaches among Celtic groups. To see those similarities and differences 
requires an acquaintance with modern folklore, archaeological discoveries, 
*and* the mythos as expressed in tales and customs and embodied in the 
languages. It also requires familiarity with the non-insular evidence. 
Without this grounding, one can easily overlook evidence or misinterpret it.

If you had chosen to simply describe what you perceive to be the "English 
experience," then I wouldn't be objecting here. My concern is that, though 
you assert that the “English experience” differs from this “Celtic 
experience,” I don’t think you adequately define what you mean by “Celtic 
experience.” Without an adequate definition of "Celtic experience," how does 
one judge the uniqueness of the English experience?

>The only academic study of Irish wells which has come out since 1995, 
>Carroll's book a couple of years ago, amplified my throwaway point in 
>*Living Stream* that most well-rituals in Ireland look post-Reformation - 
>therefore underlining the point that the Irish experience is distinctive.

I noticed your "throw-away" when I read the book (and doesn’t Logan say this 
as well?). What makes something “look” pre-Reformation? Carroll’s work is 
valuable because it collects the evidence from modern sources, but he 
overlooks--or is unaware of--the medieval and earlier evidence. So I would 
not commend Carroll's work as a model for how to conduct a study of well 
devotions. As I see it, precedents for the devotions documented at wells in 
Ireland can be found in earlier texts, and well devotions should be seen as 
one occasion when a common paraliturigical vocabulary was used.

>As for Grand, I'm afraid I just didn't know about it, and you've been 
>responsible for bringing it to my attention, Francine, as, I suspect, to 
>several other people's. It does seem to parallel the English sites and so 
>has to be taken into consideration.

Grand is distinctive for having been so well developed in the Roman period 
and leaving  evidence of how it was developed from a fairly simple hill-top 
site. But my point was that the entire body of evidence from Gaul needs to 
be considered for the evidence it sheds on common Celtic approaches, 
including sites in Britain from the same period.

>But who's to do it?

Probably a team approach would be best to ensure that all aspects were 
covered adequately. I think the beginning is to start looking at all the 
evidence from the earliest period to the modern to see how people used wells 
in their communities. That means starting with archaeological finds but also 
looking at medieval texts--"secular" tales as well as hagiography--with a 
fine-toothed comb to understand concepts and usages on their own terms.
>
>Perhaps the biggest point to answer is whether there is a 'Celtic 
>experience' or whether this is a misconception based on the superficial use 
>of the sources in just the way you mention ...

I object to romanticized misconceptions about Celtic culture, but I don’t 
think that’s the only type of misconception that hinders full understanding 
of the role of wells in Celtic contexts. For example, you dismiss the 
possibility of association between a well and a megalith if they are a 
half-mile or more apart. But Celtic folk customs often involve lengthy 
circuits from one part of the ritual complex to another. The complete 
circuit covered by the Trome/nie at Locronan (Brittany) is something like 14 
miles. Ma/ire MacNeil documented that in Ireland, Lughnasa celebrations 
often involved long treks up and down mountains with stops at wells (Croagh 
Patrick is the best known of these). As I see it, placing a geographic limit 
as you have is forcing the evidence to fit a pre-judgement that may be as 
inappropriate as the modern misconceptions you rightly criticize. Similarly, 
your description of the Cailleach as "one of the aspects of the Mother 
Goddess" is  inaccurate, apparently based on a popular misconception of how 
the Irish regarded and interacted with deity figures. Instead, I think wells 
and their associated figures should be seen within the context of other 
customs and ideas about the cosmos that we find in the mythos (for example, 
see Mac Mathu/na’s article on Irish perceptions of the cosmos and how they 
evolved, as well as Muhr’s essay on water imagery in early Irish, both in 
Celtica 23).

>My approach has always been that there is no reason why the Anglo-Saxon 
>invasions of England should have made any difference to the well-cult 
>there, and the greater density of holy wells in Celtic areas is due to 
>their more recent (especially religious and economic) history rather than 
>any cultural distinctions between peoples in the way wells were used.

I think it would be difficult to ascertain how many wells were in what is 
now called England before the Reformation, let alone how they were used. 
Wells are fragile, often temperamental critters which must be tended with 
care or they'll be lost, as people on this list can testify. Connections 
between wells and other parts of a ritual complex are even more fragile. 
However, there are a number of reasons why Brythonic evidence would be 
destroyed in Anglo-Saxon areas. Liturgical practices considered "Celtic" 
were deliberately banned and suppressed. Cultural remnants were suppressed, 
if not in the Anglo-Saxon era, then in the Norman. Would we today be able to 
recognize the ritual association between the well in Locronan and the 
hilltop miles away if the Trome/nie had been suppressed 500 years ago? 
Probably not. Then how can you be certain that there were no such sites in 
eastern England? Is it possible that Bretons walk the Trome/nie in Brittany 
today because their Brythonic ancestors once walked similar devotions in 
easternmost England?

>But I don't feel qualified to comment on Wales, Scotland, Ireland, 
>Cornwall, Brittany and Man themselves.

And that is where I have a problem. As I see it, how can one assert that the 
“English experience” is different unless one defines what it differs from? 
And how does one define the “Celtic experience” unless one is qualified to 
comment on the evidence from Celtic areas?

One more point: you have characterized--and apparently dismissed--the 
Brennemans' book as "romantic." While I wouldn’t suggest it as a model for 
future studies, I do think they made important contributions. They 
identified the physical characteristics that consistently mark holy well 
sites in Ireland: the well (or water hole), a vertical structure (burial 
mound, hill, or standing stone), and a tree. They document how the naming of 
wells has been universalized in three stages: first from apparent 
pre-Christian usage (based on function or mythic figure) to purely local 
saints, then to pan-Irish ones (Patrick, Briget, Colum cille), then to 
pan-Christian figures (Jesus, Mary).

Francine Nicholson


_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail