> De : Francine Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
> Objet : Re: Druid - Magus
>> From: Alexis <[log in to unmask]>
>> This could be a part of the explanation. I see there a kind of parallel
>> with the two glosses at the end of a version of the Táin Bó Cuailnge : the
>> Irish one asks for a good conservation of the story, whereas the latin one
>> qualifies it as being a tale for fools.
> Were these really glosses? I think fo a glass as a comment that elucidates
> the text. The OI comment, here, was added to the end as a sort of colophon,
> and the Latin comment was added after that.
>> Then it would be like a metaphor of the opposition : conservation versus
>> emandation... Then, was it that Latin was used to show a Christian
>> perspective, and Irish an other (?) perspective ? I am not sure.
> I don't think it necessarily had that connotation. When the main text was in
> Latin (as the majority of the earliest texts were), the use of magus was
> sometimes glossed ".i. dru/i" by later hands. When the main text was in OI,
> a gloss ".i. magus" was sometimes added. This practice of glossing terms
> wasn't confined to texts mentioning druids or magi--it was pretty common
> practice to note the Latin or OI equivalents on MSS. And it's a good thing
> for us, because it helps us avoid at least a bit of guesswork. ;)
It was just a kind of free association, nothing very serious ;-)
> Also, BTW, you might check the 9th c. Latin Tripartite Life of Patrick.
> Lonigan (p. 8), citing Chadwick's _The Celts_ says that the term druidae is
> used there.
Haven't found it.
> And as an example of Irish glosses on Latin Lonigan cites Thes.
> Pal. I, p. 695: on 2 Timothy 3:8 reference to Iannes and Mambres has ".i. da
> druith aegeptaedi"--Lonigan says that these two characters, connected
> traditonally with the Egyptian priests who oppose Moses in Exodus, are
> identified in some texts (viz. Isidore of Seville) as "magi." My sense is
> that identifying non-Christian priests and magicians as "magi" was pretty
> widespread in medieval times, and the Irish were just carrying on
> established practice by using the term to refer to their native
Dennis Wrote :
>>I think as far as the Christian Irish, or at least the literati, were
concerned, there was a simple dichotomy: Christian priest vs. Pagan
magician. All of the pagans, both native and foreign, were simply lumped
together. With this mindset, there was no reason to distinguish the native
(or Gaulish) druids from any other variety of "magician".
Then, I suppose that it shows that the Irish were not so conservative (and
proud of their pagan past) : they regarded their pagan priests as their
colleagues on the continent, magus. I do agree with this non-nativist (and
non-nationalist I must add !) view of the Irish (Christian) literati.