>> From: Alexis <[log in to unmask]>
>> Does anyone has an hypothesis about the complete lack of the latin term
>> *druis/druides in the latin texts of Ireland ? In latin, "druid" is always
>> translated by "magus", which is not as specific (but in return, the irish
>> term "druí" is also used to define a magician in general).
> De : Tom Torma <[log in to unmask]>
> Apparently Catherine McKenna has an article dealing
> with this in the forthcoming (recently published?)
> CSANA yearbook.
Thanks for the info, I will check on it when it will be issued (in august
2002 it seems).
> De : Francine Nicholson <[log in to unmask]>
> Objet : Re: Druid - Magus
> I can think of two reasons.
> First, perhaps "druides" was not perceived as a Latin term, since it was so
> close to the native drui/.
And so, I am not sure it would have been perceived as a problem, I guess
there were other words like that.
> Second, in the Latin texts, the figures referred to as magi (with glosses
> equating magus as drui/) are sometimes explicitly linked with and certainly
> modeled on the figure of Simon Magus who appears in the New Testament and
> early Christian apocrypha. So the term magus may have been used deliberately
> to indicate that from the Christian perspective druids were magi in the same
> (pejorative) sense as Simon.
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. 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.