Evidence that Iolo Morganwg Forged??

[Carla O'Harris]

Hi,

I'm relatively new to Druidic studies compared to some of my knowledge about Wicca, and so I'd like to ask those who know, just what is the evidence that Iolo Morganwg engaged in extensive forgery.

I have two reasons to be skeptical of this claim :

1. Many have said that his forgeries were so good that some were "better than the originals". (Whatever that means -- to me it sounds like it might be authentic.)

2. There's such universal acclaim that it was a forgery that that makes it VERY suspicious. Everyone says "it's been conclusively proven", but of course no one bothers to repeat the arguments anymore.

As Vine Deloria, Jr. has exposed, it is very easy in the history of scholarship for a small minority of scholars with a little bit of prestige to propagate an idea that ends up getting repeated endlessly until it is accepted as dogma.

Consider the dogma here questioned.

I have found a few commentators feeling that Iolo Morganwg may have mixed forgery with authentic collection, as well as collecting oral literature. There are others who have compared the style and substance of his writings to other undisputed Welsh literature and found significant parallels.

It's very possible that Iolo Morganwg was a rampant forger. But I'd like to see the proof, well-argued, and with the ability to distinguish between what is forged and what is authentic.

This is important. Consider the Scandinavian Eddas, about which I am an expert. Up until the last ten years, Odin's Raven Galder, an extremely important Eddic poem that provides critical chapters in an ongoing story-arc, was considered a later forgery and inauthentic. It was essentially dogma that the poem was a fake, and therefore you won't find it in most published editions of the Poetic Edda. For the most part, you have to find it on line. Yet reconsideration by various scholars, and continued debate have redeemed the poem as authentic, as well it should be. This should be a lesson for pagans to search very deeply, and really look with penetration and discernment into documents which have been "discredited" by scholars, because the debate can always turn, and it is certain that a debate will never turn unless people are sharp enough to question that which has become accepted dogma.



Carla O'Harris

[Little Billy]

The thing to remember is that the original druidic lore was pretty much all destroyed when Agricola wiped out the druidic priesthood, between 70-84 AD.

Just saying.

[Carla O'Harris]

That seems exTREMely unlikely --- I mean unlikely to a degree which is incompatible with any kind of common sense. Druidry was found from Ireland to at least Gaul and probably beyond, and had been entrenched for centuries.

Now if Catholicism were suddenly outlawed, do you think all traces of Catholic Lore would disappear, even if the priests were outlawed? It would take centuries and centuries and centuries to fully disappear, and even then would survive in a different form.

Obviously it would transform. But if you have a religion deeply respectful of transformative change, then it stands to reason that this might not be a problem. Since the Druids purported to teach metempsychosis, it would lend themselves to being able to institutionally reincarnate as well.

What is being purported is that the Welsh were able to preserve much of Druidic lore through their bards. This should be relatively non-controversial, as music and verse can preserve knowledge intact for centuries. For example, while much of the Poetic Edda was written down in the 1200's, it is generally agreed that much of it was probably composed in the 800's or even earlier, for verse can be conservative in preserving lore. And when we say that we mean that it can preserve actual lines intact for hundreds of years -- in this case for over four hundred years. In terms of the actual material preserved by the Poetic Edda, while it may or may not have preexisted 800 A.D. in this precise poetic form, the motifs are substantially older, on the order of millenia, as one can find precise analogies to those motifs in other Indo-European cultures, especially the Iranian and Indian. As far as the Welsh are concerned, one need not postulate the strict-transmission theory up to the time of Iolo Morganwg --- ie., that he encountered verse that was akin to the Poetic Edda, but rather we can postulate the possibility of a looser transmission theory --- although transformed, there may have been remnants of genuine bardic lore in what he discovered.

[Little Billy]

That seems exTREMely unlikely --- I mean unlikely to a degree which is incompatible with any kind of common sense. Druidry was found from Ireland to at least Gaul and probably beyond, and had been entrenched for centuries.


...And the Romans were THOROUGH, dominated the entire Celtic region, and were vicious enough to carry out the job. They also had a thing about human sacrifice, probably a holdover from their wars with Carthage. The last Druids were wiped out in ~ 80 - 84 AD, when they took a last stand against Agricola on a small island. They were killed to a man, the few that surrendered being put to the sword.

There is no historical evidence of any kind that supports druidism surviving Agricola's eradication of them...hardly surprising, since the Druids kept theirr lore within the priesthood (and didn't have a written tradition). When all the priests were killed, the lore went with them.

[Carla O'Harris]

...And the Romans were THOROUGH, dominated the entire Celtic region, and were vicious enough to carry out the job. They also had a thing about human sacrifice, probably a holdover from their wars with Carthage. The last Druids were wiped out in ~ 80 - 84 AD, when they took a last stand against Agricola on a small island. They were killed to a man, the few that surrendered being put to the sword.

There is no historical evidence of any kind that supports druidism surviving Agricola's eradication of them...hardly surprising, since the Druids kept theirr lore within the priesthood (and didn't have a written tradition). When all the priests were killed, the lore went with them.

I'm sorry, I'm not used to such flat categorical rebuttal, but this is just flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry, but Romans long after this reported information about druids and druidesses who gave prophecies. It's ridiculous in the extreme to believe that they were able to wipe out the lore of an entire continental wide priesthood. I don't care how thorough they are. How successful has the U.S. been in getting rid of clerics they don't like in Iraq?

[Zibblsnrt]

I'm sorry, I'm not used to such flat categorical rebuttal, but this is just flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry, but Romans long after this reported information about druids and druidesses who gave prophecies.

What's your source? Which Roman authors? The ones I've read tend to start finding things other than the druids to talk about pretty early on after the conquest of Britain, to put it lightly.


How successful has the U.S. been in getting rid of clerics they don't like in Iraq?

The US has done nothing close to a serious attempt to eliminate any particular culture in Iraq, to be perfectly honest.

American culture doesn't have the cojones to be a fraction as thorough as the Romans could be. If the Romans wanted a culture neutralized, it was neutralized. If they wanted one stamped out, it was exterminated.

There's a reason we know next to nothing about Carthaginian or Etruscan culture, and have only the barest ideas about cultures of those such as the Gauls (handwave reconstructionists aside).

[Little Billy]

I'm sorry, I'm not used to such flat categorical rebuttal, but this is just flat-out wrong.

I'm sorry, but Romans long after this reported information about druids and druidesses who gave prophecies.


Can you provide a link to this? I'm a freak for Roman history, and no source I know of mentions this.

[Little Billy]

American culture doesn't have the cojones to be a fraction as thorough as the Romans could be. If the Romans wanted a culture neutralized, it was neutralized. If they wanted one stamped out, it was exterminated.

There's a reason we know next to nothing about Carthaginian or Etruscan culture, and have only the barest ideas about cultures of those such as the Gauls (handwave reconstructionists aside).

This is the correct answer.

[Paracelsus]

Yeah, come on Carla, this is just your attachment to radical new "underground" historical discourses again, isn't it?
I know that just because the "dominant hegemony" of historical studies, including your old enemy the "evil" Professor Hutton, puts forward an idea - in this case that Iolo was a nationalist forger, it means that you want to prove the opposite, but I suspect that in fact, once again, Ronald has the balance of evidence on his side.
While I can accept that there was probably some low level Druidry that survived the roman destruction of Mon, you're on a hiding to nothing if you are suggesting that he was, in any way representing a continuous, surviving tradition.

[Carla O'Harris]

Yeah, come on Carla, this is just your attachment to radical new "underground" historical discourses again, isn't it?
I know that just because the "dominant hegemony" of historical studies, including your old enemy the "evil" Professor Hutton, puts forward an idea - in this case that Iolo was a nationalist forger, it means that you want to prove the opposite, but I suspect that in fact, once again, Ronald has the balance of evidence on his side.
While I can accept that there was probably some low level Druidry that survived the roman destruction of Mon, you're on a hiding to nothing if you are suggesting that he was, in any way representing a continuous, surviving tradition.

Rrrrrrright, it's just My "attachment", rather than existing attachment and brownnosing of the scholastic status quo. No, Paracelsus, what I am doing is QUESTIONING, and what is coming back at me is PARTY LINE. That's b.s., and it's shallow. I'm asking for some deeper questioning. Obviously I'm not going to get it here, which is not surprising, as it is often the case here that people are unwilling to do questioning.

Note that I'm perfectly willing to accept that Iolo Morganwg may have been a complete fake. But I'd like some PROOF, not vain assertions.

I haven't investigated the Carthaginian case, but I'd be willing to put good money on the fact that you could find traces of that as well, because there is no way to wipe out all traces of a culture. One person survives, they impart their wisdom to their children, something coheres. Carthaginian culture stretched all over the Mediterranean. The Romans may have wiped out their centres, but there was no way they could wipe out everyone. They could have prevented official discourses even. But things have a way of transmitting in the underground. Someone in Spain, in Libya, passed on certain wisdoms and they morphed as they were passed on in the family, etc. Again, I haven't investigated the Carthaginian case (which would require vast amounts of research given the cultural overlays in their ancient territories), but the logic is still on the side of some kind of survival in some form or another. Would the survival represent the pure form as it existed in the heyday when things could be out in the open? No, but that doesn't mean important survivals couldn't have taken place.

[Zibblsnrt]

Wow, you're proving Paracelsus right bigtime here.


Rrrrrrright, it's just My "attachment", rather than existing attachment and brownnosing of the scholastic status quo. No, Paracelsus, what I am doing is QUESTIONING, and what is coming back at me is PARTY LINE. That's b.s., and it's shallow. I'm asking for some deeper questioning. Obviously I'm not going to get it here, which is not surprising, as it is often the case here that people are unwilling to do questioning.

You know, sometimes the "party line" is actually correct. Rejecting something because it's the majority opinion doesn't cut it; that is, itself, BS and shallow.

The evidence you show to refute the claim at the start of the thread is the fact that the claim was refuted. That's fallacious reasoning, for starters. Do you really believe that historians just get together, make up conclusions and then refuse to do anything more than repeat the dogma? Have you even once looked at a real historical journal? I'm getting the impression that you haven't from the contempt you're showing academia.

Ohyeah, attempting to claim the moral high ground by insulting people who just might have studied this topic much, much more than you have doesn't really impress me at all. I can't speak for Paracelsus, but I have placed years of study into history and I am not a "brownnoser of the scholastic status quo."

If you're unable to discuss this without insulting people who disagree with you, you're always welcome simply to stop responding.


I haven't investigated the Carthaginian case, but I'd be willing to put good money on the fact that you could find traces of that as well, because there is no way to wipe out all traces of a culture.

That certainly explains the lack of surviving examples of Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Carthaginian, Etruscan, Hunnic, and Parthian cultures. It also explains the surviving Vinča culture, whose name has been lost due to the totality of their vanishing.

Oh, wait.

Cultures are lost - in their totality - all the time. This is not, and has never been, news.


One person survives, they impart their wisdom to their children, something coheres. Carthaginian culture stretched all over the Mediterranean. The Romans may have wiped out their centres, but there was no way they could wipe out everyone. They could have prevented official discourses even. But things have a way of transmitting in the underground. Someone in Spain, in Libya, passed on certain wisdoms and they morphed as they were passed on in the family, etc. Again, I haven't investigated the Carthaginian case (which would require vast amounts of research given the cultural overlays in their ancient territories), but the logic is still on the side of some kind of survival in some form or another. Would the survival represent the pure form as it existed in the heyday when things could be out in the open? No, but that doesn't mean important survivals couldn't have taken place.

If you find any information that implies Carthaginian culture survived significantly beyond 146 BCE, I'm going to go out on a limb and (probably correctly) assume it's a forgery. But then again, I've studied Roman history in general and the Punic Wars in particular for several years, have followed some of the literature (including the specialized stuff), and correctly believe that that's worth a little more than wishful thinking.

But rather than having some significant education and expertise on the topic, that simply means that I'm a brainwashed fool who really knows nothing about things such as this, doesn't it?

[Carla O'Harris]

Wow, you're proving Paracelsus right bigtime here.



You know, sometimes the "party line" is actually correct. Rejecting something because it's the majority opinion doesn't cut it; that is, itself, BS and shallow.

The evidence you show to refute the claim at the start of the thread is the fact that the claim was refuted. That's fallacious reasoning, for starters. Do you really believe that historians just get together, make up conclusions and then refuse to do anything more than repeat the dogma? Have you even once looked at a real historical journal? I'm getting the impression that you haven't from the contempt you're showing academia.

Ohyeah, attempting to claim the moral high ground by insulting people who just might have studied this topic much, much more than you have doesn't really impress me at all. I can't speak for Paracelsus, but I have placed years of study into history and I am not a "brownnoser of the scholastic status quo."

If you're unable to discuss this without insulting people who disagree with you, you're always welcome simply to stop responding.



That certainly explains the lack of surviving examples of Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Carthaginian, Etruscan, Hunnic, and Parthian cultures. It also explains the surviving Vinča culture, whose name has been lost due to the totality of their vanishing.

Oh, wait.

Cultures are lost - in their totality - all the time. This is not, and has never been, news.



If you find any information that implies Carthaginian culture survived significantly beyond 146 BCE, I'm going to go out on a limb and (probably correctly) assume it's a forgery. But then again, I've studied Roman history in general and the Punic Wars in particular for several years, have followed some of the literature (including the specialized stuff), and correctly believe that that's worth a little more than wishful thinking.

But rather than having some significant education and expertise on the topic, that simply means that I'm a brainwashed fool who really knows nothing about things such as this, doesn't it?


Look, you're not listening, which is typical for this forum.

I said that no one has provided me with PROOF. Simply restating some status quo point is hogwash. Show me the friggin' proof.

I don't show disrespect towards academics, although you perhaps brownnose them in your automatic defense of them. I show disrespect towards sloppy and elitist scholarship which just assumes refutations without providing the arguments. I demand logic.

I consider this thread closed due to a COMPLETE CLOSEMINDEDNESS on the part of every person who has responded. Thanks for nothing, assholes.

[Little Billy]

.

I haven't investigated the Carthaginian case, but I'd be willing to put good money on the fact that you could find traces of that as well, because there is no way to wipe out all traces of a culture.

Sure there is. You kill all the adults and older children, enslave the younger ones, and salt the earth.

The Romans didn't mess around.

Now, do you have a Roman source that talks about Druids existing after 84 AD (as you said you did), or not?

[Little Billy]

Look, you're not listening, which is typical for this forum.

I said that no one has provided me with PROOF. Simply restating some status quo point is hogwash. Show me the friggin' proof.

I don't show disrespect towards academics, although you perhaps brownnose them in your automatic defense of them. I show disrespect towards sloppy and elitist scholarship which just assumes refutations without providing the arguments. I demand logic.

I consider this thread closed due to a COMPLETE CLOSEMINDEDNESS on the part of every person who has responded. Thanks for nothing, assholes.

1. You were the one that claimed that Roman sources referred to existing druids after 84 AD. Where's YOUR proof?

2. Okay. And I demand sources, not wishful thinking.

3. Demanding evidence of a view that is in stark contrast with all known history on a subject is "being closed minded"? Or is this just your way of dodging the fact that NO Roman source ever discussed existing druids after Agricola wiped them out?

[Rina]

*enters into the fray*

I'm studying this for my Masters dissertation, so this is a bit of a pet subject of mine.

What appears to be your sticking point is the nature of Iolo's forgery. No-one has ever argued, or can rightfully suggest that he made up entirely the existance of the Druids. Roman sources etc enter into this debate.
What he did, however, was to invent a large amount of supposed tradition for the Druids, a lot of which are still used and followed today.

The first suggestion that Iolo was a forger came to light in G. Williams 1956 book "Iolo Morganwg". In this he goes through Iolo's manuscripts which went on to make up "The Book of the Bards in Britain" (apologies if the title's not quite right, I'm a tad hungover). The main strain of the argument is the Iolo's manuscripts claim that they contain notes taken from original sources. Even with the manuscripts themselves to aid the tracing, his "original sources" can't be found. This lack of concrete evidence together with the fact that we know Iolo was very inspired by the work of James Macpherson (forger of the Ossian poems, to a very similar magnitude) is the over-arching indication that his manuscripts were written straight off the top of his head.

This wave of historical forging isn't surprising given the romantic period's inclination to find a new past for britain which excluded classical culture and the growing trend towards celtic nationalist feeling in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Later books by Prys Morgan and Geraint Jekins further the original argument.

I hope this is some way towards an answer, and I'm more than willing to add to this debate as I continue my research.

[ap Dafydd]

1. You were the one that claimed that Roman sources referred to existing druids after 84 AD. Where's YOUR proof?



No, there are actually two occasions on which Roman sources referred to "druidesses" prophesying the accession of future emperors.

I'm not anywhere where I can quote them exactly, but I'd suggest referring to Rankin's "The Celts and the Classical World" which brings together all the Greek and Roman references .

Now some writers have questioned whether the "druidesses" were really real or whether the writers of the stories had the idea that druidesses used to prophesy therefore the people who prophecied the accession of the emperors in question must have been druidesses (if you see what I mean) - it depends whose interpretation you believe.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[ap Dafydd]

The first suggestion that Iolo was a forger came to light in G. Williams 1956 book "Iolo Morganwg". In this he goes through Iolo's manuscripts which went on to make up "The Book of the Bards in Britain" (apologies if the title's not quite right, I'm a tad hungover). The main strain of the argument is the Iolo's manuscripts claim that they contain notes taken from original sources. Even with the manuscripts themselves to aid the tracing, his "original sources" can't be found. This lack of concrete evidence together with the fact that we know Iolo was very inspired by the work of James Macpherson (forger of the Ossian poems, to a very similar magnitude) is the over-arching indication that his manuscripts were written straight off the top of his head.

This wave of historical forging isn't surprising given the romantic period's inclination to find a new past for britain which excluded classical culture and the growing trend towards celtic nationalist feeling in Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Later books by Prys Morgan and Geraint Jekins further the original argument.

There's no doubt that Iolo was an indefatigable collector of manuscripts which he certainly didn't forge.

There's equally no doubt that he was a very accomplished poet in his own right.

Where the problem lies is in sorting out what's genuine from what's not, something which (and I'd always thought it was John Morris-Jones who originally put the finger on Iolo as a forger) hasn't seriously been done since he fell out of favour.

No I don't think that he found anything which contains material descending directly from pre-Roman times, but I've found his lore very powerful stuff to work with over the years, especially the Coelbren.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Rina]

Date of John Morris Jones?
I'm only going from my studies so far with what I've said, and I'm more than willing to revise and research further.
Part of the problem IS that his work has fallen out of favour with every school of academia.
I don't doubt the power of his work, as you say, he was a powerful poet in his own right.
The question of authenticity is bound up in the value judgement we make of the work. Is his work any less valuable because we cannot trace the original sources he claims?
The "Book of The Bards in Britian" is the work which the Welsh Library seems to suggest is Iolo's forged work, stemming from, as you say, his lack of verifiable pre-roman sources. I'm in the process of reading this myself from his original manuscript (his handwriting is AWFUL!) and he mentions lots of "sources" which aren't in the list of manuscripts we can confirm he owned or had access to.

[ap Dafydd]

Date of John Morris Jones?

The "Book of The Bards in Britian" is the work which the Welsh Library seems to suggest is Iolo's forged work, stemming from, as you say, his lack of verifiable pre-roman sources. I'm in the process of reading this myself from his original manuscript (his handwriting is AWFUL!) and he mentions lots of "sources" which aren't in the list of manuscripts we can confirm he owned or had access to.

John Morris-Jones was early 20th century, died in 1929, IIRC

Interesting that you've got hold of the original of Barddas, and perhaps you can answer a query for me.

The published edition breaks off in volume 2 and it's obviously incomplete - I wondered if the manuscript is also incomplete or whether something went wrong with the published edition.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Rina]

The manuscript of "The History of the Bards in Britain" I'm working from is from the Welsh Library Mirror site. Yes this is also incomplete, and is explained in the forward from the library in that the work was meant as a compillation his studies and was never finished, as his was mid-way through this in 1826 when he died.
"The Secret of the Bards in the Isle Britian" was written while Williams was in prison between 1786-7 for mounting business debts. Although is seen as his most accomplished work it's worth noting his location, and the problems this provided.