[Previous entry: "An Evening with Taranus"] [Next entry: "CR FAQ dismisses "A Handbook of the Scottish Gaelic World" writer as racist and misogynist"]
06/14/2006: "New CR FAQ dismisses Alexei Kondratiev's "The Apple Branch" as Misleading"
music: Bite the Hand that Feeds - Nine Inch Nailsmood: Shock and awed
It is a difficult task to create a religious umbrella based on a pre-Christian ancient culture. It's even more difficult to develop a FAQ which all associated with the umbrella will agree upon when that ancient culture is Celtic. The men and women attempting this task over at CR R Live Journal deserve praise for their efforts and their emerging product, which in many parts has become quite an informative body of work.
The new CR FAQ is now on-line: http://www.paganachd.com/faq/index.html
The authorship of the FAQ is claimed by Kathryn Price NicDh�na and Erynn Rowan Laurie. Most of the 10 or so CR's directly associated with this project are Americans, not fluent in Celtic languages, and, for the most part, unlettered with scholarly degrees in Celtic studies. So when the section of the FAQ relating to reading list came out, I was particularly saddened
by the entry concerning "The Apple Branch: A Path to Celtic Ritual" by the renown Celtic scholar Alexei Kondratiev. Kondratiev, a native American fluent in all six extant Celtic languages (reading, speaking, and teaching them), a Celtic scholar/teacher who has spent considerable time living in areas of extant Celtic culture developing a Celtic worldview, and a champion of the struggle of Celtic cultures to resist the onslaught of monoglot imperialism, has for several decades been an invaluable servant in giving selflessly of his knowledge to those of the Diaspora craving to learn more about Celtic culture and traditions.
His book "The Apple Branch" is required reading among Americans of the Diaspora seeking to develop a working pre-Christian Celtic based spirituality. Unfortunately, our group of CR/R'ers working on their CR FAQ chose to marginalize the work and, by extension, its author.
After placing the book in the recommended reading section with a special caveat, the FAQ continues:
"Although some people like this book a great deal, and it is sometimes treated by some as though it were a definitive book on CR Pagan practices, most CRs note that it was composed before CR existed, and at a time when a more purely CR work had no appreciable market. As a result, many elements of the book make use of more general Neopagan ideas, and other elements which are not a part of CR belief or practice. In addition, the purpose of the book was not to present a CR method of practice, or to be about CR at all, but rather to present a form of culturally-based religion which was practical for groups including Neopagans, Wiccans, Christians, and others. The author himself has stated that it is not a CR book.
Furthermore, some interpretations of Celtic theology in the book are questioned by CRs, as is the ritual structure popularized in the book (and it is the latter which is the more important criticism.) While it is often included on some broad-based, CR-related reading lists, most CRs do not consider it a CR book. A significant number of CRs actually consider the book to be more misleading than helpful to those looking for information on CR."
http://www.paganachd.com/faq/caveats.html#applebranch
First of all, *many* people of the Celtic Diaspora in America yearning to develop an understanding of Celtic spirituality value "The Apple Branch". Go visit just about any pre-Christian Celtic spiritual, cultural, or traditional Internet list and mention it; you will find members who will defend its value. The author clearly promotes the book as "a" path, not "the" path. It is divided into two sections; one an informative narrative of Celtic historical existence, the other a scholarly, detailed, suggested path to develop a pan-Celtic pre-Christian spirituality honoring all existing Celtic cultures in a neo-Pagan ritual framework that emphasizes authentic Celtic traditions, mythology, language and culture.
Who are the "most CR's" mentioned in the FAQ? Obviously the 10 or so people developing it who believe CR (Celtic Reconstructionism) is a religion, as opposed to just a methodology. Google CR and Apple Branch or Kondratiev and see how many CR sites come up praising the book.
Secondly, the FAQ tries to marginalize this work of Kondratiev by insinuating that "most CR's" note is was written "before CR existed".
Let's examine this position. Quoting the FAQ, we are told the term CR began being used around the early 90's and then shortly after began to become a distinct spiritual movement.
http://www.paganachd.com/faq/whatiscr.html#howstarted
Kondratiev, on the Apple Branch Yahoo group, says the writing of the book began in the late 1980's and took 7-8 years to complete. The original publishing of The Apple Branch was in 1998 by Collins Press. So clearly, the book was developed and written concurrently with the time line of the development of CR our FAQ writers identified as a spiritual movement.
When asked if he wrote the Apple Branch for any particular group, Kondratiev replies,"I wrote it for all people who have experienced the aesthetic/spiritual attraction of Celtic tradition (by which I mean the complex of values and perceptions of the world that has been passed down in Celtic cultural communities). Many different religious traditions have interacted with this cultural tradition and have been influenced by it in the process. Their various roles in the development of the tradition have been equally valid, and as I see it the commonality of the cultural context transcends the very real differences between them. That said, I do think the dominant perspective in the book winds up being
what we now call CR (a term that didn't exist at the time I was writing)."
Quoting Kondratiev further in 2005, "Celtic Reconstructionism as most people think of it today -- i.e., an attempt at recreating in detail what Celtic religious practice would have been like before Christianity, primarily in the Iron Age -- didn't exist back when I was writing _The Apple Branch_, and I didn't write it from a "CR" perspective. I tended to call my own position "Celtic Traditionalism" until the term was given a different -- to my mind, somewhat obscurantist -- meaning by another group of people: since Celtic cultures are still alive and continue to maintain their own traditions, I wanted to give new energy and purpose to those traditions by bringing out the pre-Christian rationale behind them and treating them as living, dynamic, meaningful activities rather than quaint and irrelevant relics. That's still my main approach (I don't think one can engage with Celtic tradition authentically without any reference to the living communities), but with the emergence of CR I probably would have placed far more of an emphasis on IE ritual structures and the testimony of the Celtic past -- especially with all the new archaeological material on Celtic temples that has come to light in the last couple of decades."
Further, Kondratiev was (and probably still is) a member of the now defunct IMBAS, the non-profit CR organization that many of the FAQ writers have either been members of, or associated prominently with its public Internet e group. In fact, in 1999, Kondratiev "led" the group ritual for the first IMBAS meeting ( http://www.imbas.org/ardfheis99/announce.htm ). For those unfamiliar with IMBAS, their website informs: "IMBAS is an organization that promotes the spiritual path of Senistrognata, the ancestral customs of the Celtic peoples. It is a path open to Pagans, Christians, and Agnostics alike". (www.imbas.org) The Imbas public Yahoo group states "Imbas' public discussion forum covering topics related to Celtic spirituality and culture, particularly the spiritual beliefs and practices of the Pagan Celts. Imbas is focused on a Celtic Restorationist philosophy and is attempting to develop a method by which modern people can have a valid pagan path based on ancient Celtic practices while still living in the modern world." ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/imbas-public ) IMBAS, by its own admission, is a part of CR. Search the IMBAS-public egroup on Yahoo for yourself and you will see Alexei prominently represented in the archives. Kondratiev has been a significant contributor to both. So to frame "The Apple Branch" as a book that was developed outside of the influence of CR is not an accurate conclusion.
Third, written at a time when CR had "no appreciable market"? Again, when the facts are examined, this statement is without merit. When this book was written, IMBAS was in its infancy and growing strongly, people interested in pre-Christian Celtic spirituality on the Net were clamoring for anything possibly authentic, and Kondratiev was busy writing scholarly articles for many Celtic interest Internet sites interested in developing a Celtic spirituality. I know. I was part of the clamoring group. Google the name Kondratiev and many of these articles will appear still today, though many of them were written in the '90's. The likes of DJ Conway, Edain McCoy and Kisma Stepanich sure didn't have any problems selling books to people who were searching for pre-Christian Celtic spirituality.
The FAQ continues: "As a result, many elements of the book make use of more general Neopagan ideas, and other elements which are not a part of CR belief or practice."
As a result of what, the inaccurate premises previously stated that have been exposed here as inaccurate? We have established that CR as both methodology and religion was in development prior to the printing of "The Apple Branch", that Kondratiev was very much involved with people embracing CR, as well as other groups attempting to develop an authentic pre-Christian Celtic spirituality for modern times, and that people associated with CR development bought and find value in his book.
Let us also set the record straight about Neopagan ideas. The term Neopagan, when used in connection with spirituality, refers to new or modern Pagan practice. CR as a religion, *is* Neopagan. It is a modern attempt to develop an authentic pre-Christian Celtic spirituality. Our small group of CR FAQ writers are attempting to define the "CR as a religion" umbrella and clearly seem to wish to distance themselves from some of the ceremonial ritual elements of "The Apple Branch". At the time of the book's writing, however, CR was not nearly clearly defined as it has been in the last several years. What has happened is by that defining process, our two self proclaimed "CR elders" have been steadily distancing themselves from these ideas and elements of "TAB" and towards the positions espoused in the CR FAQ. It is also important to note that there is disagreement among the FAQ writers themselves on some general issues and elements within their own tradition, as noted in one of our previous blog entries concerning traditions observed by Brighid's flamekeepers.
Remember, Kondratiev clearly states that readers can take the information found in "TAB" and apply it to their own spiritual paths. With his command of the extant Celtic languages, his experience with living Celtic cultures, his knowledge of pan-Celtic mythology, folklore, and traditions, it is clear that the writer has good foundation upon which to base his writings. His rituals were suggestions, yet the material upon which these rituals were based still has clear value to persons attempting to reconstruct an authentic modern practice of pre-Christian Celtic spirituality.
Let's make a respectful comparison between Kondratiev and the 10 or so group of CR FAQ writers. Our CR FAQ writers, some who claim to have been involved with CR since its inception, are not nearly as prolific. Searching the CR Internet hot spots will reveal few articles or accolades similar to Kondratiev's.
Now, some of these CR FAQ composers might say, well what does the "Intardnet" know? Fair enough. Let's forget the Internet, though all of us know without the Internet, no one would care much about an Internet CR FAQ project and many of CR's strongest supporters would not be in collective communication.
My first question to our two main FAQ writers Kathryn Price NicDh�na and Erynn Rowan Laurie, as well as the several additional contributors, would be: How many of them fluently speak, read, and/or teach a Celtic language, let alone all six? None to my knowledge.
Second: How many have lived in a Celtic land, experiencing Celtic culture as a native, developing a Celtic worldview through language and culture? Again, none to my knowledge.
Third: How many are recognized by degree carrying Celtic scholars as their peers? Perhaps one. The rest are self taught.
Fourth: How many have books on Celtic spirituality in print? The majority do not. "Circle of Stones" comes to mind by Laurie, yet I wonder how much of that today would be claimed to be entirely authentic to CR.
So we have a group of Americans who can't speak or read Celtic languages, who have never lived in Celtic lands, who have never taught others how to speak or read Celtic languages, never researched Celtic folklore in the native languages, and have no living Celtic cultural worldview experience, telling us that the book of a native American Celtic scholar who has done and continues to do all of those things is not a good source for those striving to develop a pre-Christian Celtic spirituality under the CR umbrella, after placing it on their recommended reading list.
Continuing to highlight the negative instead of the positive value of "The Apple Branch", our two FAQ writers go further: "In addition, the purpose of the book was not to present a CR method of practice, or to be about CR at all, but rather to present a form of culturally-based religion which was practical for groups including Neopagans, Wiccans, Christians, and others."
This statement is not exactly true. The purpose of the book was not limited to this. Kondratiev clearly says regarding the rituals, "Aspects of (the material) could be improved, or adapted to meet the needs of individual circles, provided the enterprise is rooted in a genuine knowledge and love of Celtic tradition." (Page 58). There is nothing here that precludes those interested in CR, who are also Neopagan by definition, from learning from this book. As we have quoted earlier, Kondratiev does view the book's "dominant perspective in the book winds up being what we now call CR."
Furthermore, browsing the rest of the approved reading list on the FAQ from which this is quoted, I noticed dozens of books that are approved for study by the aspiring CR student. Not one book on the approved list was written "to present a CR method of practice, or to be about CR." Yet they are all listed as of having value to the aspiring CR apprentice, without any caveats. The works of Miranda Green are included, yet there is much scholarly debate on her tendency to go to undocumentable extremes when it comes to applying symbolism.
In the interest of fairness, how do our CR FAQ writers define CR? "Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (CR) is a polytheistic, animistic, religious and cultural movement. It is an effort to reconstruct, within a modern Celtic cultural context, the aspects of ancient Celtic religions that were lost or subsumed by Christianity." http://www.paganachd.com/faq/whatiscr.html#whatiscr
Anyone who has read The Apple Branch will agree that the material Kondratiev provides has benefits for people striving to do just that.
Further they define:" By studying the old manuscript sources and the regional folklore, combining this information with mystical and ecstatic practice, and working together to weed out the non-Celtic elements that can arise, we are nurturing what still lives and helping the polytheistic Celtic traditions grow strong and whole again. We approach this in part by trying to envision what different Celtic Paganisms would look like today if they had been uninterrupted by Christianity, much as Hinduism has changed over the centuries, remaining the same religion but changing in form with the changing times."
So they combine folklore and mythology with "mystical and ecstatic practice". What is being grown or created, though, is clearly a modern, Neopagan tradition that seeks to be Celtic by its focus of study and practice, not by becoming a part of living Celtic cultures.
Another phrase to note here is "working together to weed out non-Celtic elements that can arise." I'll come back to this a little later.
For a better understanding of the CR's viewpoint, let's read further: "In the case of CR, what we are attempting to model are the various forms of pre-Christian Celtic spirituality. We do this in order to create a modern spiritual practice that retains as much authentic older material as possible while also being workable in the modern world. We do this because we feel called to Celtic Deities and a Celtic worldview, and we wish to help preserve modern Celtic languages, music, and cultures."
So to the CR FAQ writers CR is a perspective, not something that actually exists today apart from that perspective. Perspective is based upon one's opinion, reflection, experience, and worldview. It is a judgment process. In all people, one's judgment process is filtered though one's worldview; the way one thinks, and is expressed using the language of the thinker. How one thinks, how one speaks and one's cultural worldview all affect one's judgment when it comes to "creating a modern spiritual practice" that would be authentic to pre-Christian Celtic spiritualities.
So our two American English speaking FAQ writers, with little experience in fluently reading, speaking, or teaching Celtic languages, little direct living experience in Celtic cultures, and thus experiencing no living cultural worldview are going to tell us that someone who has all of that experience as well as a clear working understanding of Indo European Pagan ritual didn't write a book that can help those of us of the Diaspora reconstruct an authentic pre-Christian Celtic spirituality in our modern times.
The spin gets better: "The author himself has stated that it is not a CR book." We have provided Kondratiev's exact quotes; true it was not developed specifically as a CR book, he does view it having a "dominant" CR perspective. In fairness, did the author himself state that the book has no value to a student of CR? Of course not. More importantly, are people who are striving to develop a CR practice finding value within the book? The answer is yes, or it wouldn't have been placed on the FAQ recommendation list to begin with, despite caveat.
Hundreds of knowledgeable readers interested in reconstruction pre-Christian Celtic spirituality claim The Apple Branch as a valuable tool in their reconstructive efforts, regardless of what our self appointed CR elders say.
In contrast, ask any of the FAQ writers for such a book and you will get a dozen excuses on why you can't have one yet. Don't take my word for it. Surf the Imbas and CR R lists for yourself; the threads are there.
The FAQ writers continue their marginalizing of TAB with the following: " Furthermore, some interpretations of Celtic theology in the book are questioned by CRs, as is the ritual structure popularized in the book (and it is the latter which is the more important criticism.)"
Note the "some interpretations of Celtic theology" are questioned. I would offer to you that there has never yet been a book about Celtic *anything* that does not have its detractors, and even the scholars cannot agree on many things regarding the Celts. This in itself should not disqualify TAB as a value to CR. In addition, Kondratiev teaches Celtic mythology at the Irish Arts Center in New York City http://www.irishartscenter.org.
As far as the ritual structure is concerned, the author clearly states that it is a suggested form, that others are free to develop their own procedures, and that nothing in this part of the book was intended as a rigid formulation. A few of the CR FAQ writers have a clear problem with the interpretation of the seating chart of Tara as a value to ritual, and have argued so on lists like Nemeton, then invoke the "working together to weed out non-Celtic elements that can arise" clause to declare the judgments as invalid to CR. I have read both sides of the argument and it is clear to me it is a matter of judgment and perspective, and something that should not be a definer of whether someone can call their practice CR. I have likewise seen the same CR's use similar judgment to develop ritual practice that clearly is assumptive in nature and defend it as authentic. So it all comes down to the value one places on the perspectives of the people involved.
The CR FAQ writers finish reiterating their position unfortunately by stepping down into the area of unfounded innuendo : "While it is often included on some broad-based, CR-related reading lists, most CRs do not consider it a CR book. A significant number of CRs actually consider the book to be more misleading than helpful to those looking for information on CR."
CR-R states this FAQ is being designed to help define the CR umbrella; an umbrella that is in itself a broad based cover of the many practices being observed as CR. So some CR lists are now also being marginalized by our FAQ writers as "broadbased", as if that was now a bad thing, and one of the "proofs" of such unacceptability is listing "The Apple Branch" as a book of value to those studying CR. Who is doing the judging? Obviously, Kathryn Price NicDh�na and Erynn Rowan Laurie.
Our writers try to add weight to their marginalization efforts by claiming "most CR's" without evidence, then claiming that a "significant" number label the book misleading, again without any substantiation. The writers of the above lines offer no proof to back the claims.
This FAQ entry is clearly negatively biased against "The Apple Branch" and its author, Alexei Kondratiev. A fair FAQ entry would have balanced these opinions with much of the positive the book has to offer. It is clear that the FAQ writers are trying to close their "umbrella" when it comes to Kondratiev.
Read the book and decide for yourself its value in developing a pre-Christian Celtic spirituality. I will only add this in regards to the above: Go to Imbas or Celtic Path and post a serious scholarly question pertaining to Celtic mythology, tradition, language, culture, or spirituality. I promise you, Alexei Kondratiev will answer your question, as he always has.
In conclusion of this particular matter concerning the CR value of "The Apple Branch", it is sad that, in typical American fashion, our CR FAQ writers, for the most part, seem to hold actual Celtic worldview, scholarship and experience in little regard, while contributing very little of the like themselves to the authenticity issues relevant to the development of a modern pre-Christian reconstruction of Celtic spirituality. The American folk writer Mark Twain said it best "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way." Kondratiev has definitely carried the "Celtic cat" by the proverbial tail...a load much too heavy for most of our CR FAQ writers to manage, I'm afraid.
To purchase Alexei Kondratiev's book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0806525029/qid=1151549872/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-9817914-4997663?s=books&v=glance&n=283155