Another review of Lebor Feasa Runda

[Noinden]

Problems with “Lebor Feasa Runda: A Druidic Grammar of Celtic Lore and Magic” By Steven L. Akins.

I will begin with the first and most serious problem with the book. The source material for this book has only ever been in the possession of Mr Akins. He also claims to only have a “German Translation” of the work, not the original Early Irish. The story of how this book came to light (according to Mr. Akins) is rather fantastical, and unbelievable.

Next the criticism over the actual name in old Irish would be Lebor Fessa (or possibly Fesso) Rúnae (1) not Lebor Feasa Runda. Which leads very nicely into the major criticism, which has been pointed at this work. The pages of German text that Mr. Akins has posted online (2) appear as hand written pages, and that the German on the pages resembles English translated to German via a web translation service (like Babblefish, or Google Language) (3). This has been attested to by a number of native German Speakers as well.

So lets move past these glaring flaws in the premise of the book and look at the content.

I will have to first note that the book has been written in a style to try and emulate “High Shakespearian English” or to appear like “King James Bible”. It is anachronistic and distracting. If one were translating a German text to English for a modern audience, one would use modern English I would have thought.

If we jump right into Chapter on: of Tir nan’Og and the Aes Sidhe.

In old Irish this would have been Tír inna n-Óc and in moden Irish Tír na nÓg. Either way he has spelled it wrong. He also confuses the Túatha Dé Dannan with the Aes Sídhe (which unlike his spelling of Tír na nÓg is old Irish). The Aes Sídhe are the “people of the Mounds” which is whom the decendants of the Túatha Dé Dannan became. The Túatha Dé Dannan themselves are not the Aes Sídhe.

This chapter revolves around a “creation myth” that bears more resemblance to other “more classical” indo European peoples than the Gaels. Namely the Greeks and Romans.

Akins would have us believe that before time there was but one deity “Domnann. Now whom he thinks this deity is, is unclear. He claims that this Goddess was a goddess of Darkness. I think that he means Domnu (Old Irish), whom is possibly the primordial Goddess of the Deep Ocean, and the Fomaire (aka the Túatha Dé Domnann or people of the goddess Domna/Domnu). Whatever the case. Domnann was “alone” and from the Darkness came Net god of Disruption.

Who is Net? Again I am guessing Neit (Néit, Nét, Neith) a god of War. He is said to be the husband of the Morrigan (4). No where is he said to be “God of Disruption”.

Domnann and Net give rise to Ernmas and Tuireann. HE calls them “Goddess of the Earth” and “God of the Sky”. Which while fine Indo-European iconology is not really accurate. She is a Mother god (not an Earth mother!) who is mother too three trinities of the Túatha Dé Dannan: Ériu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89riu), Banba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banba) and Fódla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%B3dla), the trinity of war goddesses the Badb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badb), Macha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macha) and the Mórrígan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B3rr%C3%ADgan) (who is also named Danu), and also a trinity of sons, Glonn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glonn), Gnim (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gnim&action=edit&redlink=1), and Coscar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coscar&action=edit&redlink=1) as well as two other sons (Fiacha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiacha_mac_Delba%C3%ADth) and Ollom (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ollom&action=edit&redlink=1))5, 6. Similarly Tuireann meant “thunderer” .

Now this would mean that the Morrigan has married her Grandpa! Very incestous. Not your typical Irish way of handling things!

Next we get a very Indus valley type myth of to Ernmas lying beneath Tuireann and begetting Bel. Except Bel is not an Irish deity. Bel is a Semetic deity, not Indo-European. Rather Bile. Who is indeed a “shinning one” and “bringer of light”. Also begat was Danand (he means Danu, the genitive form of "Danu" is Danann, and the dative Danainn( Here Akins decides that she is a “moon Goddess” which is strange. Because here name in Proto-Indo-European may be reconstructed as *dānu and means flowing water. A River. Not the moon. He has stated that it actually means “menstral cycle” for flow. He has no proof of this, he just states this. So we have Danu moved from a River Goddess to a Moon Goddes.

From here a lot of Begatting and a lot of other things go on.

Somehow Akins also decides that Net and Domman had other children who got thrown out for being naughty little imps (Cain and Able any one?). He calls these the Fomoraig. He means the Fomorians, Fomors, or Fomori (Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language) Fomóiri, Fomóraig). Whichin old irish is, fo muire (Modern Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_language) faoi muire), "under the sea". It is interesting that he thinks this. Because that is more closely related to the idea of the Titans than the fo muire.

He then goes on to say the fo muire after being thown out of home went to “Lochlann”. This is very interesting. Because in Gaelic. Lachlann is Scandinacia. (7) This usage was first noted by the Annals of Ulster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_Ulster) in 853. A little late for Akins timeline.

Next we ger some more interesting behaviour. Apparently Brighid (Daughter of the Dagda) was supposed to be married to Tuireann (hmm more incest), but Cerna (more on that soon) the “Irish Horned God” fell in love with her at first sight, and long story short, got thrown out of Tír inna n-Ócinto Tech Duinn (the realm of the dead) and became “Donn the Dark one”.

There is a really huge problem here. Donn was a King of the Sons of Míl (the first Gaels to come to Ireland). He was the first of the ancestors (Sinsir) to die on the actual soil of Eire, and as such became the God of the Dead. He was never a Túatha Dé Dannan! The other name he is known by is Da Derga (the Blood red God).

Cerna. Has never been recorded as an Irish being of anysort. Be it Túatha Dé Dannan, the Son of Míl or whatever. Rather this seems to be an attempt to take Cern, which is a name associated with Cernunnos.

Chapters two through 5 are takes on the standard series of “invasions” of Ireland. They are written in the same “High english” that Akins likes to use. They are short, and they are not as good as the other versions out there.

Next the Túatha Dé Dannan show up in Ireland.

The First Battle of Mag Tuired. First I would note that Akins uses many sources for this cahpter. None of which he cites, indeed he cites nothing in the entire book. One glaring example is the passage “All around black robed Druidesses with unkempt hair hanging over their faces ran to and froe between the ranks of Warriors….” (8) compare this to the description of Tactus (9) on the sacking of Mona during the Icene uprising.

Next we have the Reign of Bres and the coming of Lugh. Both are versions similar to that commonly cited. But again in the style Akins seems to want to write this in. For whatever reason Akins then inserts the Quest of the Sons of Tuireann in here. We then get the second battle og Mag Tuired. Again it does nto vary much from the other versions, but the language detracts.

Lastly in part one there is the gaedil. Akins seems hooked on the book of invasions as a source of material that is 100% correct. The Sons of Mil were the First Gaels in Irealand. He cites that Donn was the first to die on the soil of Ireland. Despite Donn being Cerna earlier! Thus We are to believe from the earlier chapters that Cerna was a member of the De Dannan’s but also a Son of Mil?

That is the end of part one. A thoroughly disjointed mish mash of Irish Myth, legend, and some fantasies from the author.

Part Two starts with “The Ways of Magic”. Here the author makes a telling mistake. He says that all things in the mortal world are made up of 4 parts, earth and air and fire and water. The 4 classical elements. However the Irish did not follow this idea. Their idea of elements was 9 fold called duile. (10) and (11) To this he adds the modern “fifth” element “Spirit” as a linking force. What the author obviously does not know is the Irish had a three fold cosmology of Earth and Sea and Sky. This was linked togeher by fire. These are NOT the 4 classical elements no matter how hard you try to make them so. What this also shows is this is not authentically period as claimed. No mention of duile!

The next chapter sells the common myth that the celts began the day at dusk rather than dawn. There is no proof that this is so. Even if it is poetically attractive. HE then goes on to list the “13 months) which to be honest shows he has been reading too much of the White Goddess. I say this because the so called “Celtic Tree Calander” is a modern invention. Robert Graves is the main perpetrator. He took the idea that there aare roughly 13 full moons in each year, and said that the Celts must have followed this, and then gave the name of 13 of the 20 orgional Ogam/Ogham to the months. From here various new agers and Neopagans, with out regard for facts, or culture have gone on to form what is known as the “Celtic Moon Astrology”.

The next chapter ragards Ogam. If the Author would have us believe the antiquity of these writtings it would be Ogam. Which is the old Irish. Ogham is modern Irish. Yes I am quibling, howver the mix of old and new Irish is a train wreck! HE also claims that Oghma created the Ogham. Which is the common legend (and one I follow) yet he also claims Ollamh Fodhla in the 8th century BCE was using Ogham. Evidence shows that Ogam was not being used before the 3rd century CE. The language of the first 4 acime shows this. The 5th acime (the forfeda aka extra letters) were created to use borrowed words.

After Ogham we get Boibel Loth. Here Akins tries to cram into the chapter the story of Scota daughter of the Pharaoh, the Sons of Mil, and the Kinf of Scythia. No proof is offered.

Now we enter the realm of Magic ™

We learn of the “instruments for working Magic” which for all the world to me looks like typical Cerimonial magic. The Slea Luin (spear of Lugh) for air, except it is a druids want (and also the Spear of Lugh as one of the treasures of the Tuatha is more akin to Fire than air). The Claiomh Solais (Sword of Nuada) but really a cerimonial knife (athme) which of the four hallows would be air. The Corie Anseasc (the Cauldron of the Dagda, and yeah water would work here) but really a challace in Akins eyes, and lastly the Lia Fail, stone of Kings, here Akins says a stone with a pentagram and Ogham will do.

Next chapter a Circle of Conjuration. Yep we have a Peentagram. Two things should be noted, the Irish did not seem to raise circles for magic and they did NOT use Pentagrams.

We get a chapter of an invocation to the Goddess (Danu in her new role as a moon goddess). Then in chapter 23 we get the old chestnut of Uil-ioc (all heal or Mistletoe in Gaelic, MODERN Gaelic). Here we even have the “golden Sickle” line of Caesar’s! A few points. Mistletoe was not native to Ireland till the 18th century. Gold could not cut misltetoe as it is to soft to hold an edge, and mistletoe is too tough to let it keep any shape. Clearly this is a fabriaction building off of a well known but aporaphil Roman account. Next we will get the story of Snakes eggs….

We next get an incantation for fire how to make insnse, and the oil of enlightenment. Before Chapter 23 on making mens or Talismans. Neither are Gaelic (old or new) words, and Lamen are the toys of Cerimonial magicians! Oh and the Taisman for Lugh uses the toxic metal Antimony, the Oil uses a number of toxic herbs, no warning given….

We get a sampling of ritjuals for the 4 fire festivals, but some how that Cerna dude gets in. Damn party crasher! Also a consectration of the Child. Oh and a spell to inhabit the mind of an animal! A love spell, and the making of effigies (aka a poppet of Vudoo doll!) Lastly a spell against the evil eye (wow the Gypsies got th Irealand that long ago?). Ok this is typical neopagan toys. But I would say in the place of the “effigy” one would authentically use a brain ball (the brain of an enemy coated in many layers of herbs and lime, which cause it to shrink, then fired via a sling at a family member of the brain’s former owner). It’s not very legal, but very authentic ;)

This is where the book ends.

IT is a very poorly disguised fabrication, which borrows from many sources, with no citation, no scholarship, and no Imbas!











(1) http://community.livejournal.com/cr_r/318578.html (http://community.livejournal.com/cr_r/318578.html)
(2) http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=205102&page=4 (http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=205102&page=4)
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druid#.22The_Lebor_Feasa_Runda.22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Druid#.22The_Lebor_Feasa_Runda.22)
(4) Sanas Cormaic (Cormac's Glossary)
(5) Lebor Gabála Érenn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebor_Gab%C3%A1la_%C3%89renn)
(6) Cath Maige Tuired (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cath_Maige_Tuired)
(7) Ó Corráin, Donnchadh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnchadh_%C3%93_Corr%C3%A1in), Vikings in Ireland and Scotland in the Ninth Century, available at "CELT". (http://www.ucc.ie/celt/news.html)
(8) The Lebor Feasa Runda p28.
(9) http://books.google.com/books?id=3lkEgdtOvGEC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=Tacitus,+Black+robed+women&source=bl&ots=G9hKnjMmNY&sig=BIElrPNdhbBy333sysHWS9Bepuo&hl=en&ei=1pmuSqelFoX0MbW-uPIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Tacitus%2C%20Black%20robed%20women&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=3lkEgdtOvGEC&pg=PA225&lpg=PA225&dq=Tacitus,+Black+robed+women&source=bl&ots=G9hKnjMmNY&sig=BIElrPNdhbBy333sysHWS9Bepuo&hl=en&ei=1pmuSqelFoX0MbW-uPIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=Tacitus%2C%20Black%20robed%20women&f=false)
(10) http://www.imbas.org/articles/elements_duile.html (http://www.imbas.org/articles/elements_duile.html)
(1) and A circle of Stones: journeys & Meditations for Modern Celts, Erynn Rowan Laurie, Eschation Publications Inc. Page 5
(11)

[Seren_]

Welcome to MW, Noinden :) I see Mr Akins is up to his old tricks again...

[Nuadu]

I think the content of the book is worth a read. A simple joe soap cant write a book like LFR and even if he didnt give references he didnt get his info by licking it off a stone.


He then goes on to say the fo muire after being thown out of home went to “Lochlann”. This is very interesting. Because in Gaelic. Lachlann is Scandinacia.

This a good example. Unless youre swatted up on Viking Ireland enough to have read the theory that the fomare in the mythological cycle are a literary representation of the vikings you wont know about the association. LFR gives it to you in the pleasurable pseudo mythological narrative. no worse then anything peter berrisford ellis has come up with, his book Druids was pulled and revised but noones on here trying to pick that apart

http://www.ucc.ie/chronicon/ocorr2.htm (http://www.ucc.ie/chronicon/ocorr2.htm)


19. As Dr Gray has pointed out, `the Fomorian threat is described as if it were a vast alliance among various Scandinavian forces, all bent upon the conquest of Ireland'. Dr Carey has argued cogently that the text was written in the second half of the ninth century—possibly in the reigns of Mael Sechnaill (r. 846-62) and Aed Finnliath (r. 862-79)—and that it represents (amongst other things) a reaction, expressed in symbolic literary terms, to the Viking attack and he sees no need to take the references to Insi Gall as the work of a later interpolator. I agree. One might add that the sea-inlets, lakes, and rivers of Ireland, whose waters the cupbearers of the Tuatha Dé promise to hide from the Fomoire, have (with few exceptions) a clear contemporary reference—the Shannon and its lakes and estuary, the Bann and Lough Neagh, the Boyne, the Liffey, the Munster Blackwater, and Strangford, Belfast Lough and Lough Foyle were amongst the principal areas of ninth-century Viking activity

[Noinden]

Here is the problem mate.

Akins says the book is based off works from the 8th century BCE. Rediscovered in the 2nd or 3rd century CE, blah blah blah.

IF the Fomaire were SUPPOSED to be Vikings. This is way out of period. Thus it shows that Akins is speaking out of an orifice other than which evolution has granted us the ability to communicate with.

Akins has taken bits and pieces from all over the mythological spectrum, outside of Gaelic, Celtic, and hells even Indo-European mythos, and made a Frankenstein’s monster!

I note you are not discussing the other aspects I mention here…

[odubhain]

Problems with “Lebor Feasa Runda: A Druidic Grammar of Celtic Lore and Magic” By Steven L. Akins.
The next chapter ragards Ogam. If the Author would have us believe the antiquity of these writtings it would be Ogam. Which is the old Irish. Ogham is modern Irish. Yes I am quibling, howver the mix of old and new Irish is a train wreck! HE also claims that Oghma created the Ogham. Which is the common legend (and one I follow) yet he also claims Ollamh Fodhla in the 8th century BCE was using Ogham. Evidence shows that Ogam was not being used before the 3rd century CE. The language of the first 4 acime shows this. The 5th acime (the forfeda aka extra letters) were created to use borrowed words.
I've noted some of the weak points in Steven Akins' book and the origins of its sources here and elsewhere. He's weakened his case considerable by seemingly fabricating sources. This does not mean that everything he has presented in his book is false or unsupported by traditional knowledge.

In the Irish mythological tradition, Ogham is said to be over 3000 years old in its use in Ireland. Some scholars think this could be so.

http://www.fanad.net/csana02.pdf

Most do not. I personally think Ogham is as old as Draíocht. It is the oldest form of the Irish language that has survived to the point that Primitive Irish is also called Ogam Irish by language scholars. In my own work Ogham is essential to understanding; to memory and to magical uses. In my studies of the Druid way I have become convinced that Ogham is the foundation and key to knowledge as taught and used by the Druids of Ireland.

Searles O'Dubhain

[odubhain]

Here is the problem mate.

Akins says the book is based off works from the 8th century BCE. Rediscovered in the 2nd or 3rd century CE, blah blah blah.

IF the Fomaire were SUPPOSED to be Vikings. This is way out of period. Thus it shows that Akins is speaking out of an orifice other than which evolution has granted us the ability to communicate with.

Akins has taken bits and pieces from all over the mythological spectrum, outside of Gaelic, Celtic, and hells even Indo-European mythos, and made a Frankenstein’s monster!

I note you are not discussing the other aspects I mention here…

I'll be glad to discuss any part of the book here. Where it follows the Lebor Gabála and Cath Maige Tuired, it is at least as viable as the existing literature. When it talks about Ogham, it is no worse than many modern works on the subject. Where it falls down is in the story of its origins and also in its origin story. I also don't like the KJV of the English language used in it and some of the modern/neoPagan/Christian dogma that has affected its style and content.

It's better than some Llewelyn books on the same topics and worse than most CR writings (although almost everything written concerning the Irish traditions of the past comes forth from someone's Well). The subject has many pitfalls within it for those who are crafty as well as those who are not.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Sizzle Flambé]

I've noted some of the weak points in Steven Akins' book and the origins of its sources here and elsewhere. He's weakened his case considerable by seemingly fabricating sources. This does not mean that everything he has presented in his book is false or unsupported by traditional knowledge.

Of course not. Liars blend fact and falsehood when making a lie, so that it will be mistaken for all fact. The true parts lend undeserved credibility to the false parts. But the blend as a whole is still a lie, just as one falsehood in an otherwise true sentence makes the sentence false. ("A, B, C, and # are letters of the alphabet.")

In the same way, few poisoners are so dim as to feed others pure poison, as their victims would probably notice and reject it. They mix the poison with good food or drink, so the resulting blend will seem safe to consume. But it's still poisonous.

[odubhain]

Of course not. Liars blend fact and falsehood when making a lie, so that it will be mistaken for all fact. The true parts lend undeserved credibility to the false parts. But the blend as a whole is still a lie, just as one falsehood in an otherwise true sentence makes the sentence false. ("A, B, C, and # are letters of the alphabet.")

In the same way, few poisoners are so dim as to feed others pure poison, as their victims would probably notice and reject it. They mix the poison with good food or drink, so the resulting blend will seem safe to consume. But it's still poisonous.

Sadly enough, what you have said is very true. All of us do this to ourselves when we rationalize our own actions and views and when we allow our personal prejudices to govern our decision making abilities.

Cults (and even cult leaders) are prone to doing this, sometimes in very devastating and harmful ways. It's important to "stand outside" of one's self at times to see beliefs and perception through "what is" rather through the lenses of self deception.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Eamon O'Rourke]

Of course not. Liars blend fact and falsehood when making a lie, so that it will be mistaken for all fact. The true parts lend undeserved credibility to the false parts. But the blend as a whole is still a lie, just as one falsehood in an otherwise true sentence makes the sentence false. ("A, B, C, and # are letters of the alphabet.")

In the same way, few poisoners are so dim as to feed others pure poison, as their victims would probably notice and reject it. They mix the poison with good food or drink, so the resulting blend will seem safe to consume. But it's still poisonous.

Having read the book myself, I would argue that what Akins has actually done is to take the poison out of all those medeival Christianized texts that represent a corrupted and distorted view of Irish mythology, removed the foreign matter and restored the myths to a more authentically Celtic pagan form.

[Noinden]

I've noted some of the weak points in Steven Akins' book and the origins of its sources here and elsewhere. He's weakened his case considerable by seemingly fabricating sources. This does not mean that everything he has presented in his book is false or unsupported by traditional knowledge.

In the Irish mythological tradition, Ogham is said to be over 3000 years old in its use in Ireland. Some scholars think this could be so.

http://www.fanad.net/csana02.pdf

Most do not. I personally think Ogham is as old as Draíocht. It is the oldest form of the Irish language that has survived to the point that Primitive Irish is also called Ogam Irish by language scholars. In my own work Ogham is essential to understanding; to memory and to magical uses. In my studies of the Druid way I have become convinced that Ogham is the foundation and key to knowledge as taught and used by the Druids of Ireland.

Searles O'Dubhain

Searles that is however a UPG. Akins is presenting it as FACT.

[Noinden]

I'll be glad to discuss any part of the book here. Where it follows the Lebor Gabála and Cath Maige Tuired, it is at least as viable as the existing literature. When it talks about Ogham, it is no worse than many modern works on the subject. Where it falls down is in the story of its origins and also in its origin story. I also don't like the KJV of the English language used in it and some of the modern/neoPagan/Christian dogma that has affected its style and content.

It's better than some Llewelyn books on the same topics and worse than most CR writings (although almost everything written concerning the Irish traditions of the past comes forth from someone's Well). The subject has many pitfalls within it for those who are crafty as well as those who are not.

Searles O'Dubhain

I would say it is on about the same level as books like Witta, or the 21 lessons of Merlyn.

Cerna is an unknown deity, and sure as hells is not Donn the Son of Mile. Then we have the ganking of the "black robed druid women" from historical (and probably just as fantastical) accounts.

Mistletoe in Ireland? Golden Sickles? I mean come on!

The book is an obvious fraud, and the author has shown on other Fora, that he wants a "white persons non zionist Testament". No thanks.

[Noinden]

Having read the book myself, I would argue that what Akins has actually done is to take the poison out of all those medeival Christianized texts that represent a corrupted and distorted view of Irish mythology, removed the foreign matter and restored the myths to a more authentically Celtic pagan form.


Hello Steven

[Nuadu]

Here is the problem mate.

Akins says the book is based off works from the 8th century BCE. Rediscovered in the 2nd or 3rd century CE, blah blah blah.

I agree that its not something that was written millennia ago, contemporary theories couldnt be included if that was the case. I dont see it as a drawback that the origins are a myth, the book excells in mythology and its origins are just another facet of that for me.


Akins has taken bits and pieces from all over the mythological spectrum, outside of Gaelic, Celtic, and hells even Indo-European mythos, and made a Frankenstein’s monster!

I think the book has its merits.
The author doesnt just know his myths, hes up to date on the academic study of them and has worked contemporary theories into a pleasantly readable narrative. It is a compilation yeah, but it takes a really skilled writer to create LFR. For example it may not be a translation from an original medieval document but IMO in some cases it accomplishes the task of a translation by imparting the original meaning. Its possible in the 9th century that people would have looked at that depiction of the fomare and thought 'vikings'... and thats exactly what was imparted to you and me when we read LFR. Thats something important IMO, that a standard translation of the original 'frankenstien', the book of invasions, wouldnt convey.



I note you are not discussing the other aspects I mention here…

I dont want to go through youre entire post nit picking at you, its my opinion that it has value and its a pleasurable read ontop of it. I like it anyway, its probably not as big a leap for me as it would be for you guys in America cos the UK Druidry Id come into contact with doesnt share the ADF emphasis on legitimising itself with academic theory.

I grew up here appreciating the myths in loads of different forms and it didnt matter to me whether those forms were supported by a detailed system of references. I enjoyed seeing that kind of thing because its a continuation of the Traditional story telling. Say LFR wasnt a book, and imagine the author was telling the story to us in a galway pub. He could include tidbits of information he values like the fomare being representative of the vikings in Ireland and hed be no different then any other seannachai. His art is just literary instead of oral.

Its no bother to me to look up any interesting Idea's I come across reading LFR anyway. If Im really stuck I can even message the author online and find out from him cos he's got a big online presence and Ive found him to be a friendly lad receptive to discussion.

[odubhain]

I would say it is on about the same level as books like Witta, or the 21 lessons of Merlyn.

It's a little better than those books IMO as I've already stated.


Cerna is an unknown deity, and sure as hells is not Donn the Son of Mile.

The idea that Donn is the "Son of Mile" is also a made up story. The idea that Donn is a deity of the Dead and one of the passages to the Otherworld is a long surviving part of Irish myth.

As to "Cerna" there are many beongs in Irish myth associated with horns and animals. "cearna" just appears to be a convenient mythological device of akins' story telling. My beef with him there is that he has casts the myths into his own imagination while apparantly trying to make us believe that some ancient document is the source. That's dishonest and really should be addressed by Akins. Monroe did the same sort of thing with less success and is also rightly held to task for his own depoarture from truth.


Then we have the ganking of the "black robed druid women" from historical (and probably just as fantastical) accounts.

I have no idea what "ganking means. "Black robed women" seems to be a completely extraneous to the discussion as well.


Mistletoe in Ireland? Golden Sickles? I mean come on!

Could you quote the sections where mistletoe is said to be in Ireland? The same for Golden Sickles.


The book is an obvious fraud,

I don't think it's an "obvious" fraud. Where it seems to be the product of fraud has been discussed in detail and particular here. you'd do well to present the particulars that support your opinion. That would help others a lot more than just going off on i or its author because you don't like him, his approach or maybe his personal opinions/lifestyle.



and the author has shown on other Fora, that he wants a "white persons non zionist Testament". No thanks.

I don't agree with this sort of personal bias from Akins or with knee-jerk reactions from other folks tp it or their own biases. Being civil, comported and open to discussing the merits of a book despite personal bias is much more informative and substantial rather than personal opinions or rheyoric that borders on propaganda from either side of an issue.

I've enjoyed reading how the book has been discussed by most on Mysticwhicks who have not resorted to such rhetoric and personal attacks. In general, the discussion here has held to the book's merits. Some thing it to be worthwhile mythology. Other think it is a retelling in the author's own words. A few think it's completely made up. A smaller number think it is an abomination of sorts. I think it has elements in it that resoinate with all of these opinions. It hasn't provided me with much that is new (if at all).

I did find Steven Akins to be a well mannered and spoken gentleman when my wife Deborah and I had lunch with him and his young son last year. He does indeed embrace a "seperation of races" ideology. I don't embrace this idea but do recognize that it has its supporters all over the world. It is hopefully in the minority but has been more strongly supported in the past in a variety of countries and cultures. The discussion of these sorts of ideologies has nothing to do woth the book itself and should not be discussed here. The book does not present this concept in its pages as fact, myth or fiction.

Let's discuss the book and leave personal issues, biases and disconnected ideologies out of the discussion please.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Neville]

I am not sure that Giving a thing a Modern treatment can do anything other than transform it somewhat, At the very least it will give the Modern Authors perspective.

Yet going back to the Source material can also bog a person down quiet a lot . for example the Metrical Dindshenchas or the Cattle raid of Cooley (Táin Bó Cúalnge)

Even the Mabinogion that I am currently wading through is a new treatment.

However at can be argued that the Celtic Scribes that sought to take the Bardic Tradition and convert it to the Written Word may also have been biased, This can probably be said of the Early Monastic Scribes who most likely would have introduced some Early Christian flavour to the texts somewhere.

Anyhow , this is a fascinating thread and one that I am very much enjoying keeping up with,

Many thanks Neville :)

[Noinden]

It's a little better than those books IMO as I've already stated.



The idea that Donn is the "Son of Mile" is also a made up story. The idea that Donn is a deity of the Dead and one of the passages to the Otherworld is a long surviving part of Irish myth.

As to "Cerna" there are many beongs in Irish myth associated with horns and animals. "cearna" just appears to be a convenient mythological device of akins' story telling. My beef with him there is that he has casts the myths into his own imagination while apparantly trying to make us believe that some ancient document is the source. That's dishonest and really should be addressed by Akins. Monroe did the same sort of thing with less success and is also rightly held to task for his own depoarture from truth.


However Akins sells this as authentic and true not a remaining. That is the point. He’s doing what Monroe did a decade or so ago. Taking a book that does not exist, and selling it as real to make his own UPG seem SPG. I have no issues with him selling this as “his vision”. What I do have an issue with is him selling this as authentic Irish Druidry. THAT is why I am going after him. You have read him on ARD. He does not keep his story straight, until the point where he is caught then he says you have no comprehension or you are not willing to believe. He is right about that last part. He also is of the camp that says to be a real “druid” ™ you can’t be liberal, gay, marxist or whatever. I’m only liberal but I am still offended by that.





I have no idea what "ganking means. "Black robed women" seems to be a completely extraneous to the discussion as well.




Ganking is the common vernacular for taking with out asking or citing.

It is important as again he is presenting this as “the real deal” and “undiluted by Christian influence”. Yet he during the first battle of Mag Tuired clearly inserts Tactus’ description of the sacking of Mona. It’s almost word for word the same. Now forgive me if I am wrong. But I do believe that this did not occur in the 8th century CE where these myths are claimed to origionate. OR even if they were writtien in the 3rd century CE it’s still not periodiclaly correct, as the Druidic organisation of the Tuata de Dannan would likely NOT have resembled the British Druidic organisations during the Icene uprising!

Like I said this is more obvious instances of this being a faked source.




Could you quote the sections where mistletoe is said to be in Ireland? The same for Golden Sickles.


I don’t have the book with me today. However there is chapter 23 that talks of the gathering of Mistletoe using Golden sickles. That is another direct stealing from Roman sources. As I noted in my review. Mistletoe was NOT native to Ireland, and was not introduced until the 18th century. Even if they went to the larger Island, they would not have been using GOLDEN sickles. I can tell you as a Chemist and a metal smith. Gold can not be made to hold an edge that will mark Mistletoe, the metal it self would deform even if you tried to hack it off. Simply put. He has taken a well known Classical description and sells it as authentic.



I don't think it's an "obvious" fraud. Where it seems to be the product of fraud has been discussed in detail and particular here. you'd do well to present the particulars that support your opinion. That would help others a lot more than just going off on i or its author because you don't like him, his approach or maybe his personal opinions/lifestyle.



I have presented them Charles. He’s been caught with his hand in the cookie jar over the non-existent German translations. He has obvious anachronistic elements in the myths and magic section. If he was selling this as HIS version of Irish Druidry. I would have no real issue with that.

This person has been banned from most moderated Druidic fora, for a very good reason. Why are you being so myopic over this Charles?






I don't agree with this sort of personal bias from Akins or with knee-jerk reactions from other folks tp it or their own biases. Being civil, comported and open to discussing the merits of a book despite personal bias is much more informative and substantial rather than personal opinions or rheyoric that borders on propaganda from either side of an issue.




What merits. Druidry is supposed to be the quest for Truth. Fraudulent manufacture of material is truthful how and when? He has admitted to trying to dupe you with a “placebo”. Is that truthful?





I've enjoyed reading how the book has been discussed by most on Mysticwhicks who have not resorted to such rhetoric and personal attacks. In general, the discussion here has held to the book's merits. Some thing it to be worthwhile mythology. Other think it is a retelling in the author's own words. A few think it's completely made up. A smaller number think it is an abomination of sorts. I think it has elements in it that resoinate with all of these opinions. It hasn't provided me with much that is new (if at all).



Furhter afield in the Pagan sphere however the book and the Author are not so well enjoyed.




I did find Steven Akins to be a well mannered and spoken gentleman when my wife Deborah and I had lunch with him and his young son last year. He does indeed embrace a "seperation of races" ideology. I don't embrace this idea but do recognize that it has its supporters all over the world. It is hopefully in the minority but has been more strongly supported in the past in a variety of countries and cultures. The discussion of these sorts of ideologies has nothing to do woth the book itself and should not be discussed here. The book does not present this concept in its pages as fact, myth or fiction.



Again you are missing the point. The book has been proven to be fraudulent. Not just by me, and the regulars at ARD. But by academics, and other people well schooled in the knowledge. What makes that ok? Again if he sold it as HIS idea. Then he’d get a more positive reception./




Let's discuss the book and leave personal issues, biases and disconnected ideologies out of the discussion please.

Searles O'Dubhain

No. Until there is an admittance of what he has done from him. There shall be no backing off. Sorry it’s against my code of ethics to allow this to occur.

Slan leat

Gareth

[Noinden]

[/FONT]

I agree that its not something that was written millennia ago, contemporary theories couldnt be included if that was the case. I dont see it as a drawback that the origins are a myth, the book excells in mythology and its origins are just another facet of that for me.


I think the book has its merits.
The author doesnt just know his myths, hes up to date on the academic study of them and has worked contemporary theories into a pleasantly readable narrative. It is a compilation yeah, but it takes a really skilled writer to create LFR. For example it may not be a translation from an original medieval document but IMO in some cases it accomplishes the task of a translation by imparting the original meaning. Its possible in the 9th century that people would have looked at that depiction of the fomare and thought 'vikings'... and thats exactly what was imparted to you and me when we read LFR. Thats something important IMO, that a standard translation of the original 'frankenstien', the book of invasions, wouldnt convey.



I dont want to go through youre entire post nit picking at you, its my opinion that it has value and its a pleasurable read ontop of it. I like it anyway, its probably not as big a leap for me as it would be for you guys in America cos the UK Druidry Id come into contact with doesnt share the ADF emphasis on legitimising itself with academic theory.

I grew up here appreciating the myths in loads of different forms and it didnt matter to me whether those forms were supported by a detailed system of references. I enjoyed seeing that kind of thing because its a continuation of the Traditional story telling. Say LFR wasnt a book, and imagine the author was telling the story to us in a galway pub. He could include tidbits of information he values like the fomare being representative of the vikings in Ireland and hed be no different then any other seannachai. His art is just literary instead of oral.

Its no bother to me to look up any interesting Idea's I come across reading LFR anyway. If Im really stuck I can even message the author online and find out from him cos he's got a big online presence and Ive found him to be a friendly lad receptive to discussion.


You are forgetting howeverr that he is selling this as authentic. Not even a personal Gnosis. Hells not even the Aes Shide talking to him. But he is selling this as the real deal. That every thing else is wrong!

I don’t give a rats arse how accurate it is. It’s not that accurate either. What I do care about is that he has been caught in a lie, repeatedly. It’s also not the first time. Yet he will not admit that he’s been a naughty little monkey and this is his UPG.

[Eamon O'Rourke]

Looking at the one paragraph in the Lebor Feasa Runda pertaining to the first battle of Mag Tuireadh that seems to paraphrase Tacitus' account of the Romans sacking the Druidic sanctuary on Angelsey, this is very close to a portion of the account of Mag Tuireadh given on Mary Jones' Celtic tales website at: http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/1maghtured.html , which reads:

"The furies and monsters and hags of doom cried aloud so that their voices were heard in the rocks ‘and waterfalls and in the hollows of the earth. It was like the fearful agonising cry on the last dreadful day when the human race will part from all in this world."

[Nuadu]

I don’t give a rats arse how accurate it is. It’s not that accurate either. What I do care about is that he has been caught in a lie, repeatedly. It’s also not the first time. Yet he will not admit that he’s been a naughty little monkey and this is his UPG.

A lack of 'accuracy' is probably a bigger crime in the states then it is here. When I said he didn't lick his info off a stone, I meant that he isnt an edain mccoy pulling lies out of his bum, He's done his research and created something worth while.

I dont really mind that he chose not to try and legitimise his instransient beliefs with transient academic theory in the style of ADF cos the way he chose is the older well precedented route in neopaganism of inventing a folklorish story of a paths origins. Those groups are still around and are equally valid.

It might even be a better way, theory dates in decades and might take beliefs based on them with it. The universal bond believed, as did everyone else at the time, that the druids built stonehenge and held their rituals there. It was supported by Archaeology at the time and the unversal bond used that fact in the media to dismiss its critics but when theory changed, it discredited the Universal Bond. Professors survived untainted cos of the aknolweged nature of theory but religious belief doesnt share that quality.

If you look at the lifespan of those older forms of neopaganism who didnt try and rely on support from they stand the test of time far better.

[Noinden]

Looking at the one paragraph in the Lebor Feasa Runda pertaining to the first battle of Mag Tuireadh that seems to paraphrase Tacitus' account of the Romans sacking the Druidic sanctuary on Angelsey, this is very close to a portion of the account of Mag Tuireadh given on Mary Jones' Celtic tales website at: http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/1maghtured.html , which reads:

"The furies and monsters and hags of doom cried aloud so that their voices were heard in the rocks ‘and waterfalls and in the hollows of the earth. It was like the fearful agonising cry on the last dreadful day when the human race will part from all in this world."

Come on Steven don't be shy :)

[odubhain]

Come on Steven don't be shy :)

Are you implying that Eamon O'Rourke is really Steven Akins? If so, how do you know this?

Searles O'Dubhain

[odubhain]

This person has been banned from most moderated Druidic fora, for a very good reason. Why are you being so myopic over this Charles

I'm not being the least bit "myopic" concerning the man or the book. I've met and discussed the book with Steven Akins in person. I've read and reviewed the book. I've attempted to verify the back story and the statements presented as fact concerning whether it is fact or fiction. I'm still doing that.

I encourage people to look at all of the issues surrounding a topic or concerning a person before condemning either. Reasoned discourse and discussion are what Druids should do concerning most matters of knowledge and not trial by bias or inneundo. I find a "rush to judgement" to be the worst sort of statement about others or one's self.

Being fair, discerning and open-minded aids clarity of thought and deepens understanding. I recommemnd that approach to everyone and I recommend that to you as well.

Searles O'Dubhain

[odubhain]

Looking at the one paragraph in the Lebor Feasa Runda pertaining to the first battle of Mag Tuireadh that seems to paraphrase Tacitus' account of the Romans sacking the Druidic sanctuary on Angelsey, this is very close to a portion of the account of Mag Tuireadh given on Mary Jones' Celtic tales website at: http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/1maghtured.html , which reads:

"The furies and monsters and hags of doom cried aloud so that their voices were heard in the rocks ‘and waterfalls and in the hollows of the earth. It was like the fearful agonising cry on the last dreadful day when the human race will part from all in this world."

Thanks for the link. This retelling of the First Battle of Moytura is a good one to read. I wish I had a copy of the entire article to see if this came from a folk tradition or is a translation of an earlier written account:

Fraser, J. "The First Battle of Moytura." Ériu v.8 (1915), pp. 1-63 [H 2.17]

It reads only slightly worse than Lady Gregory's retelling of the tales.

Searles O'Dubhain

[odubhain]

While looking for the article by Frazer, I found a "Google Book" titled The war of the gods: the social code in Indo-European mythology (http://books.google.com/books?id=PK89AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA169&lpg=RA1-PA169&dq=Fraser,+J.+%22The+First+Battle+of+Moytura&source=bl&ots=tgvn1mjXNf&sig=ttt1vriMmdw5UGuIi4Ht6ix0w7k&hl=en&ei=Nzm-Sp7CD8Wj8AbOqPShAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=Fraser%2C%20J.%20%22The%20First%20Battle%20of%20Moytura&f=false) by J. G. Oosten. It has some good comments and insights on Indo-European mythology and concepts. Frazer evidently translated a later Irish version of the Battle of Moytura which is probably available online somewhere.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Eamon O'Rourke]

Thanks for the link. This retelling of the First Battle of Moytura is a good one to read. I wish I had a copy of the entire article to see if this came from a folk tradition or is a translation of an earlier written account:

Fraser, J. "The First Battle of Moytura." Ériu v.8 (1915), pp. 1-63 [H 2.17]

It reads only slightly worse than Lady Gregory's retelling of the tales.

Searles O'Dubhain

According to the attribution at the end of the tale, it was written by Cormac O’Cuirnin for his companion Sean O’Glaimhmn; and evidently later published in Ériu

[Nuadu]

Thanks for the link. This retelling of the First Battle of Moytura is a good one to read. I wish I had a copy of the entire article to see if this came from a folk tradition or is a translation of an earlier written account:

Fraser, J. "The First Battle of Moytura." Ériu v.8 (1915), pp. 1-63 [H 2.17]

It reads only slightly worse than Lady Gregory's retelling of the tales.

Searles O'Dubhain

Searles isn't it from H.2.17 the yellow book of Lecan?
I cant give you the column number but its on Irish Script On Screen in the Trinity College Dublin Collection. The first battle is written in middle Irish and its not as popular as the second battle because it contains less OI stuff. I think its possible it is a proper translation given it made it into Eriu with an MS ref attached.

[Noinden]

Are you implying that Eamon O'Rourke is really Steven Akins? If so, how do you know this?

Searles O'Dubhain

Charles it's called an educated guess. Based upon his (Steven Akin's) Behaviour in other fora and groups. A "new poster" arrives hearalding or defending the book, and soom Akins shows up to "save the day".

Thus I am basing this upon this behaviour which I have seen for a year or so.

mmm K

[Noinden]

I'm not being the least bit "myopic" concerning the man or the book. I've met and discussed the book with Steven Akins in person. I've read and reviewed the book. I've attempted to verify the back story and the statements presented as fact concerning whether it is fact or fiction. I'm still doing that.

I encourage people to look at all of the issues surrounding a topic or concerning a person before condemning either. Reasoned discourse and discussion are what Druids should do concerning most matters of knowledge and not trial by bias or inneundo. I find a "rush to judgement" to be the worst sort of statement about others or one's self.

Being fair, discerning and open-minded aids clarity of thought and deepens understanding. I recommemnd that approach to everyone and I recommend that to you as well.

As for Innuendo? The only Innuendo I like is an album by Queen :P

Akins is a poster on Stormfront. In ARD he accues Jews and Zionists as well as "Liberal Homosexuals" of being against him. Not very Druidic.

Akins has been caught once in lies over his Clan claims. Been caught now with his so called German source (in fact they are English translated to German via a web site) and faking Gravestones of his source.

Druids claim to be seeking truth. So why would I trust a proven liar?

I will go back to watching some Dr Who now. I like my Fantasy British and realistic.

Searles O'Dubhain

Sorry no deal Charles. I read the book when it first came out with an open mind. I came to the conclusion that it was a load of balls!

It's a book that is based on a lie. That has been proven here. You are dodging that. . You attacked Jim on ARD for things this "gentleman" is doing a million times worse.

I thus do not see you as any more unbiased than I.

So since you are such an "expert" on what makes this book so good. Tell us. It can't be that it's basaed on real work. That is sunk. It can't be that it's even vaguely authentic.

So go on. What is it? Or is it because he was such "nice gentleman" when you met him. Gengis Khan loved his mother yah know, so I am sure all the old ladies in the lands his hords invaded thought he was such a nice man.

[odubhain]

Sorry no deal Charles. I read the book when it first came out with an open mind. I came to the conclusion that it was a load of balls!

I'm not making or offering a deal so you'll have to look elsewhere if that's what you seek.


It's a book that is based on a lie. That has been proven here. You are dodging that. . You attacked Jim on ARD for things this "gentleman" is doing a million times worse.

I'm not dodging anything. I'm merely looking into the truth of the situation.

I've had my disputes with other people to be certain but that's no excuse for others to bend the truth; to attack others; to blow things up into larger issues than really exist.


I thus do not see you as any more unbiased than I.

How you see me is not the issue nor is your bias or lack of bias.


So since you are such an "expert" on what makes this book so good. Tell us. It can't be that it's basaed on real work. That is sunk. It can't be that it's even vaguely authentic.

I didn't claim to be an expert but thank you for the compliment.

I've already thoroughly reviewed and commented on the book. If you want to read what I think about it, just read the other threads on it right here.


So go on. What is it? Or is it because he was such "nice gentleman" when you met him. Gengis Khan loved his mother yah know, so I am sure all the old ladies in the lands his hords invaded thought he was such a nice man.

Steven Akins did indeed behave as a gentleman when my wife and I met him. He has excellent manners and obviously cares for his children, his traditions and the culture of his ancestors. He wrote the Lebor Feasa Rúnda book because he wanted modern people to have a book that explained the Irish tradition from a Pagan perspective. He says that the source for it came from Henrich/Henry Thorenson by way of Evelyn Thorenson. No one has actually dispproved that story in spite of the existence of a German machine translation.

Steven Akins has blundered and used bad judgement even if one believes his every word to be true. The authenticity of LFR is evidently not to be found in written sources from the Irish past but as folklore and myth it is no worse than most other retellings.

I don't personally see it as being necessary to my own traditions and beliefs but think that it is at least anout 75% in line with most other Irish folklore. It also has some useful examples of how to use Ogham in magical efforts and actions.

If you think Steven Akins is lying about the book's source being from Henrich Thorenson then prove that he was never in a POW camp in Alabama, never married to Evelyn Thorenson and could not have had access to such a document. If you can prove even one of these things without undue bias and flaming then I'll support efforts to keep people from buying it. If you can't, then it's no worse than the Ogham stuff in Graves' The White Goddess (and that has taken on a useful life of its own in modern times).

BTW it's

SEARLES O'Dubhain

To address me here (when I've signed my name as Searles) in any other way is just plain bad manners IMO

[Nuadu]

So since you are such an "expert" on what makes this book so good. Tell us. It can't be that it's basaed on real work. That is sunk. It can't be that it's even vaguely authentic.

Man all you guys do on Ard is argue... about everything. How is that productive and who cares, seriously? Do you think telling people that LFR is a crap book that people arent going to buy it? Just by virtue and necessity of living in Ireland how Pagans in Ireland do things is different but if I was to go ramming those differences down your throat (as I have in the past) what difference would (did) it make to you?

The same thing that disqualifies LFR to you, can be applied by me to Recon Druidry. Youre a fan of the idea of 'accuracy' but historically Ireland and Irish people (people from Ireland) have had almost *no* input into the development of 'celtic paganism' and Druidry has its origins in British trad and Recon Druidry in American Trad... without that how can what you do be an 'accurate' translation of our religion into your culture?

For all you guys read in books about our culture even our language is at odds with *major* influences in American culture like capitalism. To ensure youre in a position to convey an 'accurate' portrayal of our early native religion you go further - and try to legitimise your beliefs through corner stones of your 'modern' beleifs (rationalism, empiracism) - Those cornerstones that were conceived to dismiss the traditional beliefs.

I'm proud that you guys take an interest and Im not mad that your way being adopted in Ireland would undermine our living trads (anymore). I learned that from dealing with you. LFR is the same deal.

[Noinden]

Charles. It has been proven the documents you saw were fake. Thus all I see is one good ole boy standing up for another.

You also know you lost any pretense towards manners several years back via YOUR actions.


I'm not making or offering a deal so you'll have to look elsewhere if that's what you seek.



I'm not dodging anything. I'm merely looking into the truth of the situation.

I've had my disputes with other people to be certain but that's no excuse for others to bend the truth; to attack others; to blow things up into larger issues than really exist.



How you see me is not the issue nor is your bias or lack of bias.



I didn't claim to be an expert but thank you for the compliment.

I've already thoroughly reviewed and commented on the book. If you want to read what I think about it, just read the other threads on it right here.



Steven Akins did indeed behave as a gentleman when my wife and I met him. He has excellent manners and obviously cares for his children, his traditions and the culture of his ancestors. He wrote the Lebor Feasa Rúnda book because he wanted modern people to have a book that explained the Irish tradition from a Pagan perspective. He says that the source for it came from Henrich/Henry Thorenson by way of Evelyn Thorenson. No one has actually dispproved that story in spite of the existence of a German machine translation.

Steven Akins has blundered and used bad judgement even if one believes his every word to be true. The authenticity of LFR is evidently not to be found in written sources from the Irish past but as folklore and myth it is no worse than most other retellings.

I don't personally see it as being necessary to my own traditions and beliefs but think that it is at least anout 75% in line with most other Irish folklore. It also has some useful examples of how to use Ogham in magical efforts and actions.

If you think Steven Akins is lying about the book's source being from Henrich Thorenson then prove that he was never in a POW camp in Alabama, never married to Evelyn Thorenson and could not have had access to such a document. If you can prove even one of these things without undue bias and flaming then I'll support efforts to keep people from buying it. If you can't, then it's no worse than the Ogham stuff in Graves' The White Goddess (and that has taken on a useful life of its own in modern times).

BTW it's

SEARLES O'Dubhain

To address me here (when I've signed my name as Searles) in any other way is just plain bad manners IMO

[Noinden]

Man all you guys do on Ard is argue... about everything. How is that productive and who cares, seriously? Do you think telling people that LFR is a crap book that people arent going to buy it? Just by virtue and necessity of living in Ireland how Pagans in Ireland do things is different but if I was to go ramming those differences down your throat (as I have in the past) what difference would (did) it make to you?

The same thing that disqualifies LFR to you, can be applied by me to Recon Druidry. Youre a fan of the idea of 'accuracy' but historically Ireland and Irish people (people from Ireland) have had almost *no* input into the development of 'celtic paganism' and Druidry has its origins in British trad and Recon Druidry in American Trad... without that how can what you do be an 'accurate' translation of our religion into your culture?

For all you guys read in books about our culture even our language is at odds with *major* influences in American culture like capitalism. To ensure youre in a position to convey an 'accurate' portrayal of our early native religion you go further - and try to legitimise your beliefs through corner stones of your 'modern' beleifs (rationalism, empiracism) - Those cornerstones that were conceived to dismiss the traditional beliefs.

I'm proud that you guys take an interest and Im not mad that your way being adopted in Ireland would undermine our living trads (anymore). I learned that from dealing with you. LFR is the same deal.

James...

First I am not an American, thus be very careful with the gneralizations eh?

What disqualifies the LFR is the Akins claims it's the real deal, and that the evidence is against it. Forged source material PROVEN. Plagerised material PROVEN. Golden Sickle and Mistletoe... yep Not irish or possible (the sickle).

Good for you that you learned something. However the Irish are still celtic in Culture. They spread the world over, and ther is no monopoly on ones heritage. You can't disallow where ones ancestors came from. However one can stand by the ideal of truth. Personal, or otherwise. If one has to manufacture evidence for ones works. One is not being true in any way shape or form. Indeed if one has to come on Fora and post "have you read this book" to get noticed. One is a very unsure of ones self.

Slan leat

[Nuadu]

Ok man youre a kiwi, but you live in in the states, you practice a form of druidry pioneered by an American and you even married an American. Thats pretty much defining naturalisation. I mean if you lived in Ireland, practiced some Irish Trad and married an Irish woman youd be as Irish as anyone in the country.

Youd probably be more masochistic cos youd have chosen those things but still... being nagged to an early grave by an Irish bird makes you appreaciate the afterlife. lol


If one has to manufacture evidence for ones works. One is not being true in any way shape or form.

Since we are pagans can you provide evidence that gods exist?
If you cant how do you explain them to people, mythology and folklore. Beliefs!

Take a more common issue in society from the Christian religion. It is possible that the jesus presented in the new testement is a compilation of teachings from different people. The christian gnosis was buried by constantine so we will never know and all thats left is the folklore of the religion, that someone was inspired and that a divine person appeared and taught everyone. Does it devalue the religion even in places like the US where rationalism prevails over trad belief? Religion was the first thing disproven by academic discipline its pointless to rely on it to legitimise belief and even if you do, like the universal bond, you'll ultimately find yourself discredited when the tide of academic opinion changes.

LFRs folklore gives a nod towards American culture in its origin story by claiming an academically authentic background. Theres nothing more to it then that IMO, if he'd wanted to Steven Atkins is obviously well up enough to have given the required 50 pages of references for that book, but he chose not to. The tide will never turn on him, he's following an old neopagan method and speculation will keep his idea's safe until he decides to change them.

[edit]He could have just referred people to the existing manuscripts and been out of reach of everyone but Isaac Bonewits and a handfull of others who actually read the OI and MI. He went his own way, sod it, he is who he is. He has balls like David Allan Coe to go against the grain like that.

[odubhain]

Charles. It has been proven the documents you saw were fake. Thus all I see is one good ole boy standing up for another.

You also know you lost any pretense towards manners several years back via YOUR actions.

I see that you've decided to continue miss-addressing me with your lack of manners and have also added your own peculiar rationalizations to the mix. So be it.

I've addressed the topic of the book and its author as objectively as I possibly can here. My words and own manners are out there for anyone to read and evaluate on their own. Your opinions are just that. I prefer to continue addressing the topics of the book in this thread and will no longer respond to your opinions.

Searles O'Dubhain

[odubhain]

Regarding "Celtic Paganism" here's something I posted on a.r.d. a little over five years ago in reply to questions about "Celtic Philosophy":


All of the writings we have on the topic are filtered through the
screen of early Christian church philosophy and dogma (circa 6th
century CE onwards) or the Greco-Roman philosophies/political agendas
of the classical historians (circa 2nd century BCE onwards). To arrive
at an understanding of "ancient Celtic philosophy" one can do no
better than to study the Irish literature that survives and to adjust
it based on an individual, personal re-synchronization using what is
reported and recorded from classical Pagan historians.

It's my personal experience that one can develop a complete
Celtic/Druidic philosophy from such a study if the filters also
include an understanding of the socio-political influences that have
been at work on the tales and histories that survive from the ancient
times. If this is not done then one is reduced (or elevated) to using
imbas and personal vision journeys to uncover/develop such a
philosophy. Otherwise, all one can do is attempt to understand ancient
Celtic religion through what survives and is known in the
archaeological record and a wide-ranging study of Celtic
folklore/practices.

I note that _Celtic Heritage_ has been suggested as a good source for
continuing study in this matter. I'd also like to suggest _The Celtic
Realms_ by Myles Dillon and Nora Chadwick, _The Celtic Consciousness_
edited by Robert O'Driscoll, _The Sacred Isle : Belief and Religion in
Pre-Christian Ireland_ by Dáithí O hOgain, and _The Celtic Gauls:
Gods, Rites and Sanctuaries_ by Jean Louis Brunaux. Of course,
reading widely and deeply about Celtic mythology will also be a great
help (Ellis, Green, MacCana, O'Reilly, MacKillop, and Cross and Slover
come to mind). Beyond this are books by Celtic scholars like John
Koch, James Carney, Patrick Ford, Joseph Falaky Nagy, Kim McCone, to
name only a few. These types of books should give you a good, general
understanding on the topic. Specific practices and examples are
difficult to find in an uncorrupted form. My suggestion is to study
the sources cited and to work on/develop one's version. Additionally,
one should do a study in comparative religions and philosophies to see
what was occuring in neighboring and competing cultures of Celtic
culture for the time/locations desired.

One should study within the cultures and traditions if one hopes to become a part of those traditions and cultures. Often, it is not possible to actually live or have lived in a particular time or place. That's why books, stories and surviving artifacts are so important.

Searles O'Dubhain

[~Elise~]

Folks, keep away from personal attacks NOW. Discuss the post, not the posters. Thread will be closed without further warning if this continues.

[odubhain]

Folks, keep away from personal attacks NOW. Discuss the post, not the posters. Thread will be closed without further warning if this continues.

Thanks for getting the thread back on track.

Searles O'Dubhain

[Nuadu]

All of the writings we have on the topic are filtered through the
screen of early Christian church philosophy and dogma (circa 6th
century CE onwards) or the Greco-Roman philosophies/political agendas
of the classical historians (circa 2nd century BCE onwards). To arrive
at an understanding of "ancient Celtic philosophy" one can do no
better than to study the Irish literature that survives and to adjust
it based on an individual, personal re-synchronization using what is
reported and recorded from classical Pagan historians.
Searles O'Dubhain

Would you say that LFR is Steven Atkins attempt at a personal re-synchronization?

OT Do you still think Peter Berrisford Ellis and Prionsios MacCana are good sources for interpreting mythology btw? Prionsios MacCana is a little dated and PBE well for all his relationship with the burning of Cork his 'translations' are retellings and he doesnt research enough to provide accurate dates...

[odubhain]

Would you say that LFR is Steven Atkins attempt at a personal re-synchronization?

OT Do you still think Peter Berrisford Ellis and Prionsios MacCana are good sources for interpreting mythology btw? Prionsios MacCana is a little dated and PBE well for all his relationship with the burning of Cork his 'translations' are retellings and he doesnt research enough to provide accurate dates...

I know that LFR seems to be that kind of work and that Akins' definitely retold it in his own words no matter what his sources were He as much as told me that he did. He couched the tale in an almost Biblical King James style to provide what he considered to be a Pagan "Bible." That's the major part of it that I don't like however. It seems that it leans too heavily towards Christian and Hebrew concepts of Creation. There also seems to be a king of Southern Christian morality that creeps into the story.

Of course, our Irish ancestors did much the same thing when they resynchronized their own traditions to those of Christianity in the 5th and 6th centuries CE. The kernal of myth might have equal parts of actual history in it as well as fantasy explanation to describe what can't really be described and what cannot actually be fully explained. In many ways rituals are attempts to experience these out of the ordinary things in a mythic environment. Other religions line Buddhism do this. Festivals are sometimes attempt to synchronize everyone with this deity power.

I think one should read old and new sources to get a better picture of the actual situations. Ellis to me seems to be a proxy/everyman for many of us. I wish he could have a staff of academic researchers pursuing his ideas so that they would provide more substance for us who wish to go even further than he does. The proof of some things is in the experience rather than in academic substantiation. Do the gods come or not? Can one's belief substantiate magic? Can the examples in the stories and tales help one in one's own life. I hope that many more will write about such things in an Irish context.

Even thos who are Reconstructionists engage in the above activities. If they only stayed with what was academically provable, they'd be left with only a dry, dead shell of the old ways. To make new life where none exists; to reconstruct and bring a new tradition foreward, everyone must provide their own experiences with the old sparks that may well survive. Alkins' efforts are one approach to doing this (and he has many judgement errors and quirks that harm his efforts). CR has its own positive as well as harmful qualities. Shutting down speculation is at least as harmful as making things up from nothing. Somewhere between the two is where life begins anew I think.

To that end, I will continue to seem to much of a UPG person to CR fundamentalists while I will seem to be overly bookish to those who want to only consider their own feelings and experioences without placing them in a context. The middle way is like that but to me has more baance than one extreme or the other. Besides that it also has a tree under which to perceive all things. The tree meditation of Keltria is one way for the Druid way. I follow it because it is neither completely CR or is it completely made up. It takes water, nurtrients, air and synshine and produces new life from above and below for the middle world in which we live most of the time..

Alexei Kondratiev does this some of the time. Ellis does this in part. Brendan Myers also does it. Even Erynn Laurie does it when she is balanced. Steven Akins tends to do this on occassion as well (though some of his own philosophies seem to fight hime completely realizing what it is he seeks). I look forward to Isaac Bonewits being back on that path again. His mind and spirit often are way ahead of the rest of us. I guess one could say that we all shoot ourselves in the foot with our short-sightedness and biases. I know I do this myself. There is a sense of urgency to get things "oyut there" that sometimes causes us to rush to publish or to lock down our thinking and feelings.

When the gods do come to us (and they come to each one of us), they burn away our falsehoods and imagining to replace them with new unexplanable and indescribable experiences. The new myths are borne out of those trips into the cauldron and out again. Call it art. Call it research and inspiration. Call it what you will but it is a stream, a flame a wind that brings to us the next awarenes of where we are going and where we have been in a way that is beyond the mortal ordinary.

Maybe there is an old word in Irish for such new things?

Searles O'Dubhain

[Sizzle Flambé]

When the gods do come to us (and they come to each one of us), they burn away our falsehoods and imagining to replace them with new unexplanable and indescribable experiences. The new myths are borne out of those trips into the cauldron and out again. Call it art. Call it research and inspiration. Call it what you will but it is a stream, a flame a wind that brings to us the next awarenes of where we are going and where we have been in a way that is beyond the mortal ordinary.

Maybe there is an old word in Irish for such new things?

Imbas Forosnai (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4715/imbasforosnai.html), 'Manifestation that enlightens'?

[Nuadu]

Maybe there is an old word in Irish for such new things?
Id say theres one in English too, Tradition.


Imbas Forosnai (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4715/imbasforosnai.html), 'Manifestation that enlightens'?

We were discussing Fionns nature over on another thread. I think Searles' use of the term imbas is in tune with the charactor of Fionn in his original portrayal as a divine youth/Seer prior to the warrior myth. Fionn is born with knowledge and his Imbas as a seer is a by product of that, a sort of divine inspiration. Divine because its something that couldnt be gained by mundane means like socratic method. Each of us like Fionn or any other skilled poet should put our own understanding, tempered with study, towards giving what we know from lit a fuller meaning. I never liked the term UPG personally. I was really interested in native Irish paganism because of experiances I had at sacred sites growing up without UPG I'd be agnostic.

With the etymology I'd keep in mind that it isn't given by Nora Chadwick but the uber right wing christian Whitley Stokes who was more concerned with conveying his understanding of what the myths represent then imparting the original meaning of the lit. If you look at his translation of the battle of moytura on Mary Jones he presents the morrigan as a lamia...

Daithi O hOgain gives a translation similar to Searles' in The Sacred Isle but he compliments it by saying (PP 80)


The original ritual meaning of terms such as these were gradually lost, and they were transformed into more mundane terms to describe technical aspects of composing verse. Yet an aura of magic continues to surround the poet in fanciful literature and in folk legend down to recent times.

The understanding Daithi O hOgain promotes in the sacred isle agree's with Rudolf Thurneysen/Nora Chadwick that Cormacs Glossary doesnt convey the actual ritual meaning associated with the words. That said the continuing literal interpretation of rituals in the article wouldnt be as popular cos O hOgain thinks the reason Cormac's meaning is wrong is the original meaning of the words was lost over time.

I agree with him, we are talking about something recorded in writing centuries after the practices were an acceptable part of society. IMO in his glossary cormac shows that he is applying a contemporary understanding of the words or that he thinks the words are arkane enough that he can make up a meaning for them. Other myths written at the same time wont have any more of an understanding then cormacs glossary so Fionns method of Imbas by chewing his thumb isn't likely to be literal.