Ogham, astrology and BS

joseph dawton

I've just read this article on Ogham which is more or less a rubbishing of Robert Graves' The White Goddess, at least in terms of accuracy. I was aware of some of the info used in this 'demolition' but I found this article a real eye opener.

http://cura.free.fr/xv/13ellis2.html

Read it for yourself if you like. I've done an extensive study of Ogham as part of my druidic studies and I'd be inclined to agree that Graves made a lot of mistakes and so have many subsequent occultists. What strikes me is that so many authors quote each other without researching the facts themselves and without consulting any of the original source material.

Ogham is a tricky one in that the original source material is hard to find, generally not on the net and brutally expensive to buy in published form (eg over 400 euro for the Book of Ballymote).

I know we can't all be (or want to be) academics but I've noticed some glaring and terrible errors in works by DJ Conway, Colin Wilson, Dianna Cooper, Doreen Virtue etc. It doesn't take much effort this weather to look up info on the net or in books and check it, why did these authors not bother in the first instance?

Does anyone else find this a pain? Why do so many occult writers think it's ok to palm off conjecture, opinion and downright errors as absolute truth? There are many good writers who do their research properly but I am amazed by what so called 'authories' get away with and worse still, their silly mistakes are then used as reference material in more erroneous claptrap.

Nevyn

joseph dawton wrote:

What strikes me is that so many authors quote each other without researching the facts themselves and without consulting any of the original source material.

That is my biggest problem with a lot of pagan/new age/ occult books.
Stuff that was published 50 years ago or 30 year ago are seen as gospel
and so much of it esp what refers to or explains irish ways and gods was never research and seems to be the publication of chinese whispers.

Which results in the many Celtic pagan re constructionists who don't have a clue and in one recent case tried to have some one's wiki account banned
for incorrect sources when they were used the UCC published Táin as their source.

joseph dawton wrote:

Ogham is a tricky one in that the original source material is hard to find, generally not on the net and brutally expensive to buy in published form (eg over 400 euro for the Book of Ballymote).

[SACRASM]What lies are this for everything is on the internet [/SACARSM]

joseph dawton wrote:

I know we can't all be (or want to be) academics but I've noticed some glaring and terrible errors in works by DJ Conway, Colin Wilson, Dianna Cooper, Doreen Virtue etc. It doesn't take much effort this weather to look up info on the net or in books and check it, why did these authors not bother in the first instance?

Because they have gotten away with it

joseph dawton wrote:

Does anyone else find this a pain? Why do so many occult writers think it's ok to palm off conjecture, opinion and downright errors as absolute truth? There are many good writers who do their research properly but I am amazed by what so called 'authories' get away with and worse still, their silly mistakes are then used as reference material in more erroneous claptrap.

Well cos erroneous claptrap apprently sells.

Talliesin

joseph dawton wrote:

I'd be inclined to agree that Graves made a lot of mistakes

Graves' mistake is not realising people would take The White Goddess literally (he did realise his mistake later and express regret, especially when he developed a fanbase - some people's gardens have moles, his had hippies).

It's poetry disguised as scholarship, just like The Princess Bride is a novel disguised as an abridgement of another novel.

Graves wasn't an occult writer, he was a poet and historical novelist.

As such it's a fine source of inspiration, but it's value as scholarship is zero.

joseph dawton wrote:

Why do so many occult writers think it's ok to palm off conjecture, opinion and downright errors as absolute truth?

Some of them sell pretty well.

Nevyn

http://community.livejournal.com/nonfluffypagans/841129.html

Some words of wisdom from elsewhere.

We need to discard the idea that books are in any way sacred. They are not, and should never be sacred. Useful, yes. Educational- definitely. But actual experience is much more powerful, and has a much greater ability to stick to your soul than page 93 of any religious tome. Yes, they're good at teaching some basics, but my Teachers always emphasized that real learning comes from the hands-on, mouth-to-ear, wax-on, wax-off diligence of true experience. Build, don't buy, your gear. Learn what works. Fix what does not work. Ditch things that are irrelevant or outmoded. Books should be read, but they should also be doubted. Make them prove themselves. This strengthens your own inner power, and builds respect among your peers.

scorplett

I couldn't agree more Thead,

All books on all subjects, possibly with one exception, are open to the interpretation and perception of the individual reading them. (The possible exception being basic arithmetic mathematics )

As far as Robert Graves goes, I never took anything in 'The White Goddess', as being either a) celtic esotericism or b)academic, To me it was semi-fiction literature with some really poetic verse and quite a few sparks for the imagination.

With regard to the article linked. I have to say I found it to have a somewhat juvenile undertone of frustration, and quite a number of hypocriticisms, errors and mistakes. I would expect more of a PhD.
For example, while arguing about scholars pontificating without knowledge of the Celtic languages, the author makes and example of a person saying hello to graves or one of his contemporaries. However, the Irish language quote is An Caighdeán Oifigiúil which was not in existence in the time graves and the other writers of the period were publishing works.
It is also humorous in speaking of the Irishman from whom Graves is believed to have gained many of his ideas for the tree zodiac, he is referred to as "Ruairí Ó Flaitheartaigh or, in Anglicized form, Roderic O'Flaherty" Call me ignorant but I have never known that Rurairí translated as Roderic, hmmf! Well something doesn't fit!, Is it O Flaherty, Graves or the writer of the Article causing such confusion?

On a more scholarly note, this article gives little consideration for the etymology of all the primary sources of the ancient texts.

For example, the Book of Ballymote was created in 1390-91 at the instruction of MacDonaghs of sligo,
The first page of the work contains a drawing of Noah's Ark.
The first written page is lost, and the second page describes the ages of the world from a biblical exodus type Christian perspective
After this follows a description of the history of the Jews , the life of Saint Patrick , this section was designed to create a parallel with the biblical creation evolution and as such, included a copy of the Lebor Gabála Érenn.
It contains a lot of information that was essentially for the purpose of the commissioner of the book to masturbate on his lofy ideal of self importance and therefore the book included "The Instructions of King Cormac" and other stories concerning king Cormac mac Airt, stories of Fionn Mac Cumhail and Brian Borumh, various genealogies of clans and kings, (Christian kings of Ulster, Christian kings of Leinster, Christian kings of Connaught, and of the Munster families, the Dál gCais,)
Also other material concerning the conventions of na fhilí (rules of the different measures of Irish versification)
The most important part of the book of Ballymote and the only part of it that has no other primary source is the 'Auraicept na n-Éces' or (the scholars primer), Then there is a copy of the Lebor na gCeart (Book of Rights),
The book ends with various Greek and Latin fragments on the fall of Troy, including a fragment of the Aeneid.


Now with reference to the quoted articles assertion that there could be no cause for belief in the core material for Graves concepts to be the age Graves purports them to be, I believe both to be wrong...
The Article quotes: "A Celtic scholar is stunned, not only by his arrogant dismissal of the world's leading authority, but his last sentence. If Robert Graves thought the tree alphabet tradition only went back to the thirteenth century AD (the Book of Ballymote is actually late 14th Century), and that is precisely what MacAlister was warning him about, for we cannot trace it back beyond that time, how is he conjuring its use and claiming it as a mystical Druidic calendar used in pre-Christian times?"
This is an assumption based on the whole work of the Book of Ballymote being a single original composition.
This is not the case, and while it may have been written in the late 14th century, if you look at the segments of it there are a much broader range of core materials that date much older than the creation of the book itself.
For example,
the version of the Leabhar Gabhála Éireann is a copy of the third redaction. The first redaction being contained in the book of Leinster and the book of Fermoy and dates to the 11th century. The version contained in the book of Ballymote is also found in the yellow book of Lecan which dates as early as 1391.
The book of Ballymote also shares text with the great book of Lecan and they share a copy of Lebor na gCeart (book of the Law) and this dates to 1418.
Auraicept na n-Éces, the very segment of the Book of Ballymote in question, is believed to have traces from the 7th century and there are believed to originally have been many more copies dating through the interceding 700years arriving at the book of Ballymote, the only surviving copy at present.

Anyway, the point I am making is that there are few if any subjects where there is infallibility and no cause for personal interpretation.
Also, when discussing primary evidence for Celtic spiritualities, I believe that to claim authority based on these things is folly. There is very little evidence of method of practices and our primary references are in relation to the practices of na fhilí. With regard to the Ogam, the primary sources do not give concrete, irrefutable evidence as to the true applications or interpretations of it, or indeed any proof that it be a fully scripted language, such claims have always come from the assumptions and presumptions of scholars and those theories can have little bearing on a persons own truth in their own experience.
In my opinion, anyone following any spiritual path, and particularly those following a Celtic inspired one, should explore their individual calling primarily through experience, secondarily through conversation and comparison with others on similar paths and finally through reading and in this instance, scholarly article is a valuable as fictional as it serves to spark interest, and occasional are precursor to imbas or divine inspiration

As a sidenote to this. The majority of the Books mentioned above are available through the celt project in UCC at www.ucc.ie/celt also there are many good wiki pages giving source links which include many facsimile pages of the actual documents.
400euro to hold a copy in your hand... a copy on your monitor for free courtesy of teh internets

Surion

Sorry, just scraped my last message - I was actually about to refer OP to the same article. I came across it a couple of months ago. Have printed it and now use it as a very good 'grounding' reminder of just how airy-faery we can be about stuff!

Amidst all the Doreen Virtues of the world et al....it's a real solid start me thinks.

Surion

Anyone else thing that if we can apply all the above to the idea of 'celtic astorlogy' that we can also begin to take down some of the other mis-nomers out there? I'm thinking of the 'extensive' writings of the Matthews in particular?

I posted some time ago about a book I came across once...by same author, I think it was 'a brief history of the druids'...but I could be wrong. He takes a severly critical look at contempory ideas & contemporary history of celts and druids and is blatantly honest that we can know very little above classic writings. Shame I never bought it.....anyone else familiar with it?

Yoda

Ogham is an alphabet. That's all it was when they invented it. Now an alphabet is an amazing thing. We know things about 6th-century Irish and 6th-century Ireland that we'd never know without it. Alphabets are wonderful.

The rest is, well, not original with the alphabet.

Talliesin

Yoda wrote:

Now an alphabet is an amazing thing.

Precisely why it may have been used for magic or have some sort of ritual value from the very beginning.

That's still a long way from saying Graves has much merit as history though, just that it might have had some associations in play beyond the practical matter of which sounds to associate with which glyphs when the alphabet first came into use.