medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>From: "Maeve B. Callan" <[log in to unmask]>
>Just to weigh in briefly, as I expect the arrival of my own "Celtic
>saint" any day now . . .
Let's hope it's an angel and not a .... ;);) Seriously: beannachta oraibh.
>Does "Celtic religion" inherently convey any greater sense of
>diversity? Seems to me it's just a matter of preference, or how
>picky we're all going to be about various labels.
Context and audience play important roles, too, in use of terminology, at
least when I use it. My impression is that most of the list members are
addressing academic audiences primarily, whereas I am usually addressing the
"serious enthusiast" or downright popular reader who thinks there was one
big Celtic nation all wearing kilts and singing Irish and following a single
set of customs.
>I don't like to use the term "pagan" because of many assumptions that come
>along with it, and "pre-Christian" implies those beliefs/practices just
>vanished once Christianity arrived in Ireland or wherever, and/or that the
>island converted in one fell swoop, and so forth.
Which of course, it did not. Reminder: "Celtic" means more than Ireland,
too. Conversion was somewhat different in every region where Celtic-speaking
people lived. On ther other hand, some of the beliefs and practices and
social institutions did go away, and the rest changed to accommodate the new
Christian context.
>"Celtic religionS" might be a better solution, but to what extent can we
>say that the people practicing them were "Celts" or that the religions
>themselves were inherently "Celtic"?
My impression is that there was a common Celtic approach to religion that
took diverse and localized form among the various Celtic-speaking peoples.
>There's no ideal solution, IMHO, so sometimes I'll use labels I don't
>generally care for and qualify them probably ad nauseam, sometimes I'll use
>"indigenous religions/beliefs/practices" qualified by whatever region I'm
>talking about (though that approach too has its problems, such as apparent
>disregard of non-indigenous influence), and sometimes I'll just wimp out
>and put "celtic" in "".
I'll agree that there is no all-purpose solution.
>Also, I think Francine's remarks regarding "Celtic Christianity" are
>more applicable to the term "Celtic Church," which does imply
>uniformity, whereas "Celtic Christianity" suggests shared
>similarities, but not uniformity.
I think they are pretty much the same with pretty much the same strengths
and weaknesses. Christianity was associated with one "church" in most of the
medieval era.
>Wendy Davies' argument about the myth of a "Celtic Church" has always
>seemed a bit of a joust with a straw man to me, as I've never actually read
>an analysis post 1950s that proclaims there to have been a single
>monolithic Celtic form of Christianity.
When I was in grad school, the notion was still very much alive (OK, I'm
dating myself--but it was long after the 50s!). And it's still alive in
popular writing.
>Plus, her neglect of the fact that Ireland fell outside of the Roman
>Empire, which had significant consequences politically, culturally,
>religiously, etc, seriously undercuts the effectiveness of her argument.
I think that's an important defect, but I know archaeologists who think
Ireland wasn't all that different from areas governed by Rome. They're
wrong, of course. ;)
>And a primary characterization of "Celtic Christianity" is its allowance
>for tremendous diversity, so it seems to me that Davies is setting up a
>false dichotomy. Moreover, anybody
>who assumes absolute uniformity in any branch of Christianity would
>be greatly rewarded by further investigation into that field.
That goes for "pre-Christianity" as well.
>
>Oh, the luxury of "facts that are known"! The vast majority of
>statements about the vast majority of early Irish saints would have
>to be seriously qualified by, "according to [insert name of text
>written several centuries after saint is believed to have lived],
>he/she trained at/was related to/established a community at . . ." or the
>like, followed by a discussion of the limits of the reliability
>of said text/tradition/what have you. Which would be quite a
>mouthful every time Phyllis reminded us it's such and such's feast
>day!
Agreed, but I don't think it's necessary to be that specific. I do think one
can make generalizations like "X was depicted as training with Carthach at
Lismore before continuing his studies at Candida Casa. Other stories connect
him with various sites in Brittany and a pardon is held in his name each
June at [blank]."
>And saints, after all, are not limited to or by "facts".
Actually, in most cases of early Irish and British saints, we don't know
enough to be sure of much. But I'll agree that hagiographers weren't limited
by "facts."
Francine Nicholson
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|