CELTIC MYTHOLOGY (Illustrated Edition). T. W. Rolleston
Читать онлайн книгу.
679. O'Curry, MC ii. 207; Elton, 298.
680. Girald. Cambr. Top. Hib. ii. 19, RC ii. 202; Folk-Lore, v. 310; IT iii. 376.
681. O'Grady, ii. 286, 538; Campbell, The Fians, 78; Thiers, Traité des Superstitions, ii. 86.
682. Lady Guest, ii. 409 f.
683. Blanchet, i. 166, 295, 326, 390.
684. See p. 209, supra.
685. Diod. Sic. v. 30; IT iii. 385; RC xxvi. 139; Rh^ys, HL 593.
686. Man. Hist. Brit. p. x.
687. Herodian, iii. 14, 8; Duald MacFirbis in Irish Nennius, p. vii; Cæsar, v. 10; ZCP iii. 331.
688. See Reinach, "Les Carnassiers androphages dans l'art gallo-romain," CMR i. 279.
689. See Holder, s.v.
690. Rh^ys, CB4 267.
691. Cæsar, v. 12.
692. Dio Cassius, lxii. 2.
693. See a valuable paper by N.W. Thomas, "Survivance du Culte des Animaux dans le Pays de Galles," in Rev. de l'Hist. des Religions, xxxviii. 295 f., and a similar paper by Gomme, Arch. Rev. 1889, 217 f. Both writers seem to regard these cults as pre-Celtic.
694. Gomme, Ethnol. in Folklore, 30, Village Community, 113.
695. Dio Cass. lxxii. 21; Logan, Scottish Gael, ii. 12.
696. Joyce, SH ii. 529; Martin, 71.
697. RC xxii. 20, 24, 390-1.
698. IT iii. 385.
699. Waldron, Isle of Man, 49; Train, Account of the Isle of Man, ii. 124.
700. Vallancey, Coll. de Reb. Hib. iv. No. 13; Clément, Fétes, 466. For English customs, see Henderson, Folklore of the Northern Counties, 125.
701. Frazer, Golden Bough2, ii. 380, 441, 446.
702. For other Welsh instances of the danger of killing certain birds, see Thomas, op. cit. xxxviii. 306.
703. Frazer, Kingship, 261; Stokes, RC xvi. 418; Larminie, Myths and Folk-tales, 327.
704. See Rh^ys, Welsh People, 44; Livy, v. 34.
705. Cf. IT iii. 407, 409.
706. Cæsar, v. 14.
707. Strabo, iv. 5. 4.
708. Dio Cass. lxxvi. 12; Jerome, Adv. Jovin. ii. 7. Giraldus has much to say of incest in Wales, probably actual breaches of moral law among a barbarous people (Descr. Wales, ii. 6).
709. RC xii. 235, 238, xv. 291, xvi. 149; LL 23a, 124b. In various Irish texts a child is said to have three fathers—probably a reminiscence of polyandry. See p. 74, supra, and RC xxiii. 333.
710. IT i. 136; Loth, i. 134 f.; Rh^ys, HL 308.
711. Zimmer, "Matriarchy among the Picts," in Henderson, Leadbhar nan Gleann.
712. See p. 259, infra.
713. See p. 274, infra.
Cosmogony
Whether the early Celts regarded Heaven and Earth as husband and wife is uncertain. Such a conception is world-wide, and myth frequently explains in different ways the reason of the separation of the two. Among the Polynesians the children of heaven and earth—the winds, forests, and seas personified—angry at being crushed between their parents in darkness, rose up and separated them. This is in effect the Greek myth of Uranus, or Heaven, and Gæa, or Earth, divorced by their son Kronos, just as in Hindu myth Dyaus, or Sky, and Prithivi, or Earth, were separated by Indra. Uranus in Greece gave place to Zeus, and, in India, Dyaus became subordinate to Indra. Thus the primitive Heaven personified recedes, and his place is taken by a more individualised god. But generally Mother Earth remains a constant quantity. Earth was nearer man and was more unchanging than the inconstant sky, while as the producer of the fruits of the earth, she was regarded as the source of all things, and frequently remained as an important divinity when a crowd of other divinities became prominent. This is especially true of agricultural peoples, who propitiate Earth with sacrifice, worship her with orgiastic rites, or assist her processes by magic. With advancing civilisation such a goddess is still remembered as the friend of man, and, as in the Eleusinia, is represented sorrowing and rejoicing like man himself. Or where a higher religion ousts the older one, the ritual is still retained among the folk, though its meaning may be forgotten.
The Celts may thus have possessed the Heaven and Earth myth, but all trace of it has perished. There are, however, remnants of myths showing