Everytime I watch some Irish/Celtic themed documentary on the History Channel they talk about the Druids. But everyone who talks about them, from Ireland and beyond, calls them "dru:ids" with two syllables.

Now we all know the importance these people played in Celtic culture...

But how did this become the word for them?

The reason I asked is that I cannot find an entry where this word is used for these people?

I have now searched:

Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla
Collin's Gem
Irish-English Eng-Irish Easy Reference Dictionay
English to Irish Online Dictionary

Not one of them has an entry for "druid" with this meaning. In fact, the only noun I can find for this word is "starling."

I found this on the Online Etymology Website:

1509, from O.Fr. druide, from L. Druidae (pl.), from Gaulish Druides, from O.Celt. *derwijes, representing O.Celt. derwos "true" and *dru- "tree" (especially oak) + *wid- "to know" (cf. vision). Hence, lit., perhaps, "they who know the oak." O.E., too, had the same word for "tree" and "truth" (treow). The Eng. form comes via L., not immediately from Celtic. The O.Ir. form was drui (dat. and acc. druid; pl. druad); Mod.Ir. and Gael. draoi, gen. druadh "magician, sorcerer." Not to be confused with United Ancient Order of Druids, secret benefit society founded in London 1781.

Shouldn't they be called draíodóir? But then, I thought the word draíodóir has always carried a negative meaning.

What did the Irish call the Druids?

quote:

What did the Irish call the Druids?

It says right there in the dictionary entry you quote: They called them druad. (The modern equivalent is draoithe.)

Since the Druids were not an exclusively Irish institution there's no reason to refer to them with an Irish name.

draoi [ainmfhocal firinscneach den cheathrú díochlaonadh]
duine a imríonn draíocht, draíodóir; tairngire, fear feasa; cleasaí.

quote:

What did the Irish call the Druids?

From FGB:

draoi (singular)
draoithe (plural)

Also, from De Bhaldraithe's English-Irish Dictionary,

bandraoi = druidess

"Since the Druids were not an exclusively Irish institution there's no reason to refer to them with an Irish name."

By that logic couldn't we also say that they were never a Roman institution so there's no reason to refer to them with a Latin name? LOL

I did find a good site...don't know about the quality of the info...but at least it is a good read.

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/returningsalmon/z_druid.html

(Message edited by do_chinniúint on September 04, 2009)

By that logic couldn't we also say that they were never a Roman institution so there's no reason to refer to them with a Latin name? LOL

Well, we tend to use words like "democracy", "justice", "equality"...

Hello Ormondo, long time no post.

This is true, but why is it that when it comes to the foreign elements that we show a mild affection for, we go out of our way to show respect by calling calling them by their own cultural/traditional/ethnic names?

For example:

We don't call samurai "knights?" When really that's all they were, Japanese knights.

We don't call pharohs "kings?" When realy that's all they were, Egyptian kings.

Now what Domhnaillín breac na dtruslóg said is correct. They were not just an Irish tradition, they were a Celtic tradition. However, they were a universal Celtic tradition.

Yet they are never addressed with the same level of admiration that we give other cultures. I wonder if this is a by-product of Western Europe trying to lessen the status of the Celtic cutlures?

Do Chinniúint, your logic doesn't hold water. You could as well say, "We don't call druids 'priests'? When really that's all they were, Celtic priests." 'Druid' is not a Latin word, it's a Celtic word in a Latin form--just as 'Pharaoh' is not a Greek word but an Egyptian word in a Greek form. It's exactly the same thing. The equivalent to your proposal to call druids by their modern Irish name would be to call pharaohs "rros" (from Coptic ⲣ̅ⲣⲟ).

Hmm...

I am sorry Domhnaillín breac na dtruslóg, but I think you missed my point.

I was saying that we have chosen to pick and choose when we want to maintain certain ethnic titles, and if we do this for some, why not for all?

In the case of pharaoh and samurai, this was a word given to them by themselves.

Also, it would not be the same. Pharaoh was a Greek word...but it was taken from an Egyptian word used by Egyptians. While the form change due to the language, the title remained.

There is no written proof that "druid" was a Celtic term. There are no written records that predate the Latin word druidae. There are Latin references to Celts calling them many names other than druids also. However, they always use the word druidae, followed by another name.

For example, in the original version of Caesar's Gallic War, he writes "The Druids or Vidisi in the Carnutes region are concerned with divine worship, due performance of sacrifices, public and private, and the interpretation of ritual questions: a great number of young men gather about them for the skae of instruction and hold them in great honor." (Caesar 335-337)

What I was saying is that when it comes to addressing certain people and classifications of people, we maintain the original/traditional/ethnic title given to them by their people.

If we called the druids "priest" then we are doing the exact same thing that we are doing when we call them druids. We are not addressing them with the titles that would have given to them by the various Celtic cultures.

So in other words, we couldn't just call them priests, because priest is not a Celtic word, nor was it a word used by them.

If I understand what you mean with the pharaoh example, you think that I would want people to call them "drui" since that would have been the Irish word form them during the height of their power in Ireland.

This is not correct.

I don't mind the word druid. I use it all the time. Why? Because that's what we as a collective have chosen to call them. That's OK.

But I would like to see is for once, if only once, one of those "historical documentaries" would say:

"The word Druid comes from the Romans. There is no such thing as a druid, because the druids were not a single unit. They were a social class of people. They were the lawyers, the doctors, the religious ritual conductors, and political advisors."

In truth, I think the word "scholar" applies more to druids than "priest." But the Romans would never have called them that. What bad PR that would have been if they said that were out to kill scholars instead of "pagan priests." LOL

Now if should they be called "priests", for which should we choose:

- priest from Greek presbyter "elder"
- sagart from Latin sacerdos "maker of the sacred"
- hierarch from Greek hieros "mighty" (originally)

Often why a word is used in one culture compared to another has socio-political reasons in addition to linguistic reasons. The first Latin dude to come to Ireland might have run into one guy who said that they were called druids, and thus it was. This doesn't always refer to what they call themselves. Are Irish Hibernians? Are the Welsh Welsh (= foreigners)? Kind of like the discussion from the other post on turas. Why did the word statio in Latin end up meaning a type of fast? Why is the English bead from the word "to pray" (hint: from the rosary beads. "Did you say your beads (= your prayers).")

By the way, we can be pretty sure of the origin of some words based on sound changes and the historical records whether through archeology or written records. Etymology is not always rock solid, but there are some definite sound change rules which establish historical time lines and original of words.

A do chinniúint, is leagan Gaeilge é druid - féach an méid a scríobh tú féin thuas:

1509, from O.Fr. druide, from L. Druidae (pl.), from Gaulish Druides, from O.Celt. *derwijes, representing O.Celt. derwos "true" and *dru- "tree" (especially oak) + *wid- "to know" (cf. vision). Hence, lit., perhaps, "they who know the oak." O.E., too, had the same word for "tree" and "truth" (treow). The Eng. form comes via L., not immediately from Celtic. The O.Ir. form was drui (dat. and acc. druid; pl. druad); Mod.Ir. and Gael. draoi, gen. druadh "magician, sorcerer." Not to be confused with United Ancient Order of Druids, secret benefit society founded in London 1781.


For the record, the Romans would have come across Gaulish druids first, then British (whom they eventually slaughtered in Anglesey)

Yeah, I know Aonghus. I was just trying to say that I wasn't suggesting we use the modern Irish word.

Seánw...

I am not saying you’re wrong, but I will pose the same question to you that I posed to my advanced physics teachers when they tell me all about the mastered mathematics of the theoretical realms...

"Unless we are able to experience the actuality of the situation, how can we presume to understand it?"

In other words, unless you have a person from said time period speaking right in front of you. How do you know what they actually sounded like?

The proposed pronunciations are an educated guess at best. They have to be treated with the same scrutiny that a math proof for a theoretical dimension that we cannot physically perceive or prove. I mean if you think about it, we can't even do this today with modern languages.

I mean take English for example. What if 2000 years from now, they say that because of vowel changes, the letter English "a" was pronounced "a:." Would this be correct? It depends on the word, the dialect, and even the person speaking it.

When the experts say, "these are the sounds." This is what they are doing. However, they are making a more bold statement because we don't have a lot of written records about the languages. We have little clues that we have dug from secondary sources. While they are the experts and can appreciate their work. They are still making a huge guess that cannot be proved or disproved. he only certainty we have is when we are talking about the periods of time that we have written record supporting their guesses. But here we are talking about languages that were not documented by either them or the ancient world to any detail. So if you choose to accept it, you have to also accept that it could be complete nonsense.

But I do agree with what you said about how words have been passed down via outside sources. And that's the interesting factor. Sometimes those outside sources choose to use another word, and other times they choose to use their words. People fascinate me.

quote:

But I would like to see is for once, if only once, one of those "historical documentaries" would say:

"The word Druid comes from the Romans. There is no such thing as a druid, because the druids were not a single unit. They were a social class of people. They were the lawyers, the doctors, the religious ritual conductors, and political advisors."

Ná nach bhfuil a leithéid de dhuine agus Éireannach ach oiread, de réir na glanloighice seo.

quote:

There is no such thing as a druid

Tuairim aisteach. Tagann litríocht na Gaeilge ar mhalairt tuairim. Is minic trácht ar carachtar leithéidí le Cathbad Draoi, agus draoi mar cuid dá ainm, geall leis.

By the same logic, there is no such thing as an engineer, becuase that is a class of persons sharing a small number of core methods, but applying them to different disciplines.

Obviously, there are more specific descriptions.

Ach ritheann sé liom uaireanta go mbeadh Briciú níos oiriúnaí mar handle do Do chinniúint. Is maith leis muid a chuir ina adharca a chéile le sleachta móra glan Bhéarla.

Cad'na thaobh go gcuirfeá aon ainm Ghaelach air agus é gan cúpla focal a labhairt anso? Leasainm níos cuí do is ea Cromwell!

An bhfuil scéal Bhriciú agat?

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G301022/

(Message edited by aonghus on September 06, 2009)

Nár chirte an ainm sheanGhaedhilge "Bricriu" a litriughadh mar "Bricre" i nGaedhilg an lae inniu?
Ní raibh an "-iu" fada, amhail "Ériu" > "Éire", "Danu" > "Dana" srl.

N'fheadar. Rinne mise botún - Bricriú an litriú coitianta.

quote:

Bricriú an litriú coitianta

Foillsigheadh leabhair agus an litriughadh sin ionntu???
Ba mheancóg aineolasach mhíchúramach é.

Do_chinniúint,
Great thoughts. My Oxford Latin dictionary says:

druidae (m. pl.) [Gall. cf. Ir. drui, perh. cogn. w. Gk. drus] : The druids (members of a native priesthood whose influences extended over Gaul and Britain).

The American Heritage Dictionary's Indo-European Roots says:

Druid, from Latin druides [= druidae], probably from Celtic compound *dru-wid, "strong seer" (*wid-, seeing), the Celtic priestly caste.

The simple fact is that the communication process of humans is not perfect. Our perception is not perfect. The delivery of the message is not. The reception is not. (And sometimes purposely so!) So we have draoi and druid. With this said, you are assuming that draoi is from Latin druidae, and not the authentic Celtic word passed on today. It seems more probable than the Irish losing the word and readopting it from the Latins. It may be probable too that many words were used and time and influence brought this down to one, especially after the druids lost influence in their communities. (Now the English druid is certainly a loan, but this is because English is not a Celtic language. My dictionary indicates that the earliest English citation is in 1563.)

quote:

"Unless we are able to experience the actuality of the situation, how can we presume to understand it?" In other words, unless you have a person from said time period speaking right in front of you. How do you know what they actually sounded like?

I understand what your saying, but I think that may be a very materialistic/sensory view of reality, history, language, and many other things. (I don't mean this to be deprecating, but more descriptive.) Unless I can touch it, taste it, see it, I will not believe. That is a highly frustrating position in most situations. What does logic dictate? Is it probable? Is it virtually true? I have no direct proof that Old Irish even existed as a language, only indirect proof. From this indirect proof reason dictates that it is virtually true that Old Irish existed. I would then be a fool to not believe that. To be plain, I don't have to have a druid, or an ancient Irish speaker in front of me to know with very high probability (which is all necessary in my mind for a question like this) that draoi is an appropriate word for the priestly class on ancient Ireland and wider Celtic lands. Druid for English also seems to be quite fine in my mind. In many ways I don't see any other words that are better positioned to represent those ancient peoples. I could be uniformed about this since I don't know much about druids; however, keep in mind that your argument can be used for virtually everything we perceive, apply a lexical symbol to, and share in our "common sense".

Oh no, I will agree without hesitation that it is a very materialistic view of reality. I am not saying that I will not believe it, what I am saying is that if something is going to be brought in front of me and claimed as true via scientific means...then you have to show me the science.

"I think, therefore it is" may be good philosophy but it is very bad science. And that is what happens a lot in these cases.

Hmm, it seems that it can be a very slippery slope.

For over six thousand years men across the globe have written about winged creatures. You can find indirect evidence all over the place. There are countless written records, you can find pictures engraved in stone, entire cultures have developed detailed psychological connections, bones and fossils have been found around the globe...

Does this mean there is a high probability these monsters are real and flying about as we speak? LOL

Why raise the red flags for this type of thing, and not for the physics geeks or linguistic anthropologists who want us to take an equal leap of faith with them?

It is just a thought.

ferr fáith,fisidiu cech druí
rí ba hepscop,ba lánsuí

Blathmac approx 750AD.Quoted in The Druids,Beresford Ellis

He translates it:

Better He than prophet,more knowledgeable than any druid,a king who was bishop and full sage

He being Jesus Christ.

Do_chinniúint,
I would say that specifically with the word draoi or druid, there is not a leap of faith. The science is there that these words are authentic and directly related to their predecessors. Now as to our historical knowledge of the druids, the perhaps many names they called themselves, and other aspects of their position in society, those are questions which linguistics may offer very little to help answering. In many ways it may be beyond help since there are no first person accounts of themselves, etc. But going to back to the History Channel. I rarely think of that channel as sound history, but more of entertainment. They're going to fill in the gaps of a historical story to produce a product. Not that there might be fine work there, but looking at our knowledge of druids, it is almost all second hand observations. Those observations may be very accurate, but how do we verify the second hand observations? That's a problem for someone who is involved in that type of work. But a nice exercise in the language realm would be to collate word usage and concepts for things that pertained to the druids which were replaced by the Romans and then Christianity? Sometimes there are remnants left of their life and beliefs. In English are remnants of their pagan culture in Easter (the word), the names of the days, various folk customs and observances, and other things which were assimulated by the new civilization. How were the scholars treated? What was respected in that society? Penance? Magical miracles? Learned scholarship? Sacrificial rites? Strong government? Etc. A central one that comes to mind for Ireland is the Paschal Fire lit on Easter Eve by St. Patrick on that fateful day back in the 5th century. That event and that fire, in my opinion, is one instance of giving us information about what the druids and the Irish people (at least in power) thought was important. Enough of these little bits start to form a picture. But the picture in this case is still quite blurry and unclear. I do agree that with druids there is a lot of "faith" via conjecture. Oh well, I did learn a bit more about them and the words.

quote:

In English are remnants of their pagan culture in Easter

Now, there is a bad example! This is a Germanic word, not a Celtic one. And the alleged Goddess Oestre supposed to have given us the English Easter and the German Ostern, is poorly documented.

And the matter of Patrick and the fire on Slane is equally problematic. I think it shows far more evidence about what Christian monks - who wrote and quite possible invented the story - thought was important, rather than what their Pagan predecessors did.


No of which forms any kind of argument as to whether
1) Irish should use or not use the word draoi, and what for.
2) English should use a word taken via Latin or directly from a Celtic language such as Irish.

DC's original argument appears too have gone up in a cloud of verbiage...

LOL...

It's alright Aonghus. That's the beauty of an open ended forums, the place we wanted to go to and the place we end up are usually never the same place. ;-)

I don't think we have actually ended up anywhere. That is my point.

Aonghus,
I think that you think I may be saying something I didn't mean. Easter was an example of another language exhibiting remnants of a pagan culture, not that the word Easter is Irish. Also I didn't state that it had anything to do with a goddess, but it is certainly pagan in origin, since almost every other culture used paskh as their word, but the Germans kept/applied Easter. That's like saying "Sunday" isn't pagan in origin. It certaining isn't "the day of the Lord" as many other languages have including Irish Domhnach.

As for St. Patrick, I just picked a well-known example, but certainly others can be put in place.

For DC and for Aonghus, and others, to put it bluntly, I'm not the one with the hang-up about the druids and using words like draoi or druid. To me there is no argument, there is no reason to call them anything else and there is no discernable way to figure out what they called themselves.

Aonghus,

It is one of those topics that doesn't have a destination. I never intended for there to be a solution, what fun is there in that now?

Most of the time when I start, or take part in, a thread here my goal is to hear what others think. Why? I find people fascinating, and I want to know if there are others here who share my interests and opinions. That's why I love to debate with so many people. I usually agree with the person I am debating with here, but it is good practice to play the Devil's Advocate. Not only does it make for good conversation, but it helps solidify your own personal ideas.

quote:

Easter was an example of another language exhibiting remnants of a pagan culture,

Ah. My misunderstanding. Since the Britons prior to the coming of the Saxons were Celts, I thought you were linking the two.

Also, there are period of parallelism between Christianity and other religions, so that it is hard to say which influenced which, and how.

There is some evidence, for example, that the cult of the Sun was promoted in Rome to combat Christianity.

But this would bring us even further away from the learning of Irish....