Normally I don't see the point of posting about this publication, they get so much of Greek and Roman myth wrong it's pointless to point out errors, and it's not like the editors ever publish serious critiques of their articles anyway. This is the main reason why I am not going to bother to email them again the next time around. So I posted this publicly as a warning to others out there who might think there might be more to articles like this than they are worth, and fooled by willfully careless and ignorant publishers and editors.
I bought a copy of this magazine last night because it has a new article by Deborah Houlding in it-this is probably the only reason why the copy of that edition was even worth paying for. The other stuff, not a real motivation to buy, and the articles about what special wonderful unique and beautiful snowflakes Aquariuses are made me want to hurl. But the Sarah Fuhro article about so-called Celtic and Druid astrology and religion was the worst of them all.
First off I'll say here that I am by no means an expert on the Celts, much less a Celtophile. However, I think it's pretty clear that Sarah Fuhro has little expertise in any of the Celtic languages and cultures and literature, and her attitude does demonstrate her own ignorance-most likely willful-about Celtic cultures andreligions.
The Celts did not worship The Goddess. They were not Wiccan or Dianic. They were not a peaceful matriarchy, period. Read the lore and the actual source texts about them (something it seems that too many newage astrologers never even bother to do when it comes to the Greeks, Romans, and Ancient Near East either), especially the translations from the Medieval Irish. They were a warrior society, and female slaves were valuable currency. Yet Fuhro presents a picture of them as being Matriarchal Egalitarian Goddess Worshippers, not what they were, patriarchal polytheists who worshipped both Gods and Goddesses, as most societies were at the time. In fact there has never been any proof of a matriarchal prehistory whatsoever (
The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why An Invented Past Will Not Give Women a Future by Cynthia Eller, though not without some flaws, is still a good book about that subject matter. I know there are better ones, but I have yet to borrow them from the local libraries, and I'm busy with other things now. Like learning about the real astrology).
Remember people,
The Mists of Avalon was a work of
fiction. Not a history thesis.
Fiction.
In an effort to appear legit, she references an article by Peter Bredford Ellis (Early Irish Astrology
http://cura.free.fr/xv/11ellis1.html I have a few problems with that article, but I'll get in to more detail about it later-maybe). But that is it, there is no critical thinking here, she has not, apparently, even bothered to learn Old and Middle Irish, much less seriously study Gaelic cultures (and apparently, Hellenistic astrology as well), which would be needed if it's ever going to possibly be reconstructed. She makes a claim about the meaning of Arthur's name, but ignores that it is still a matter of debate among scholars.
Next-Moon Goddesses. The Celts did not have Moon Goddesses, or even Sun Gods. They did, however, have some male gods
associated with the Moon, and female goddesses
associated with the Sun. Sigh.
Ogham-That was a Irish invention, it was
not Druid and pan-Celtic. Sigh.
Celtic religion=Druidry, always!111. Sigh.
The lumping of Celtic gods with Greek and Roman ones in order to make a point. Very badly done. I'm not saying there aren't any influences and Indo-European parallels, but you can't (or at least, hopefully should not) lump Brigid with Venus and expect to be taken seriously.
In the end the article
A Druid's Star Lore: The Four Fire Festivals has little if anything to do with actual astrology. There is nothing here about creating a chart, elections, or prediction, you know the kind of thing that ancient cultures actually considered to be pretty damn important (as entire kingdoms and dynasties depended on these things). It is a neopagan Wiccan/Dianic interpretation of Celtic and ancient cultures that does not hold up to the standards of research and scholarship a subject like this richly deserves. But I suppose I should have expected something like this to begin with from a magazine and similar publications that continues to allow newage and neopagan theology color the interpretation of cultures in general. Their standards will always be low.
My next rant might be about Raven Kaldera's
Pagan Astrology book, but only after my blood pressure finally lowers.
ETA: I feel like adding Druidry was an
earned position, something you worked for decades on
within a Celtic community. No one has the right (at least yet, who knows, maybe the CR community will have a real one in 100 years or so) to call themselves a Druid. Call me old fashioned.
ETA 2: I edited a few more dozen times, and perhaps I should have not rushed in to posting it. Despite minor errors on my part, however, I stand by my judgments about this particular trainwreck.