Talk:The White Goddess

Edit request

I believe that this article now goes a long way towards pointing out that The White Goddess is not respected as accurate. However, I think that it would be justified to expand on this opinion.

Graves' book is separable into scientifically verifiable ideas (mostly linguistically and archeologically) along with his poetic nonsense (which, I believe, he would feel is the main subject of the book). The scientific ideas are discredited because of the analepsis technique, among others. I have read the book through several times. Unlike some authors that propose new ideas, he does not look at contrary evidence and discount it because it does not fit with the theory. Most of his scientific discourse is difficult to refute, even as more archeologically evidence has become available since it's original and revised publications. In fact, what he conjectured at, based on linguistic evidence, has since received supporting evidence from archaeological discoveries.

I would like to see a short (two or three sentence?) representation of this idea of the two themes that run through his book. --Timatthelab 13:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit request

Actually, I find this article fairly insulting, and would agree with "Timatthelab" that the points he is making (about Grecian myths influencing Irish and Welsh religious culture) as well as other archaeological evidence of syncretism between "opposed" religions. I am not going to call bias on the current state of this article, but it is obviously written by someone who does not approve of matriarchal religion. 64.122.204.27 02:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Analepsis

Could someone explain what analepsis is? I followed the link but it redirects to flashback and that doesn't make any sense in the article. If Graves was using it in a non-standard way that should be mentioned. Tocharianne 21:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Graves uses it to mean a kind of "unforgetting". This is related to the "flashback" term, but the analeptic is flashing back to a memory outside of physical experience. I believe that this sort of mystical revelation (technically, a recollection) of something from before one's own birth exists in many religions, sometimes experienced with the aid of sacramental substances or physical travail.

This is, I believe, the root of the controversy in Graves' historical presentation - He claims to have knowledge of some historical occurrences based on analepsis, and it does not sit well with readers. My earlier point was that his conclusions should not be discounted based solely on this one blatantly non-scientific claim. For example, if somebody claimed that she believed that massive objects attract each other with a force proportional to the product of the masses, and that she reached the conclusion after an apple hit her on the head, it might not be justifiable to discount the conclusion by discounting the method of discovery. Some of Graves' stories are suppositions, and may or may not be plausible, but are completely untestable; others are hypotheses, for which some evidence exists and can be tested, at least to a point. If these hypotheses are taken seriously, the treatise is valuable, even as a piece of historical exposition. Timatthelab24.41.20.139 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking for the reference to this for years. I wonder whether it got edited out in one of the revisions. I think he used the phrase 'analeptic memory'. To equate this with poetic inspiration I believe is inaccurate and the comment that he believed it to be a valid historical methodology may also be misleading. His chief method was an analysis of the language of poetic myth, that is not the same thing as 'poetic inspiration'. I have always understood 'analeptic memory' to be a form of 'channelling'. I don't think it's relevant to judge whether that was a valid methodology or not, it is simply how he described what he thought he was doing. ″all that I write must read perversely and irrelevantly to such of you as are still geared to the industrial machine″ - Foreword to the 1961 edition. Tim flatus (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of Chapter 20 - ″A Conversation At Paphos - A.D. 43″ was apparently received using this method: ″Then I threw my mind back in an analeptic trance. I found myself listening to a conversation in Latin, helped out with Greek, which I understood perfectly.″. Tim flatus (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Rearrange

I've wikified the lengthy quotes, and moved the image to the top of the page - no problems there.

I also rearranged the paragraphs and added section titles - it's a well written article, but I thought some parts appeared out of sequence. So I cut and pasted, without editing the writing, although some present tense was switched to past. Revert if you like, but keep the wikifying edits.

Unreadable? I've read it several times. You don't plough through it - it's more like a puzzle devised by a man with a brain big enough to match his ego.--Shtove 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Balance

I have removed comments that were openly perjorative or unverifiable, and added fact tags where other unattributed assertions were made. I have also removed the undue emphasis that was given to Analepsis, for the following reasons. Firstly because the weight given to it was such as to suggest that poetic inspiration was all that Graves used as a technique. It was not, the article itself states that etymological techniques were used, and I have added text alluding to Graves view that the existing myths that we have inherited are contaminated by a process he calls iconotropy. These contaminations are able to be identified through their inconsistency. Graves adopts a forensic analysis to resolve such inconsistency, and while analepsis inspires that approach, it does not define the arguments that he is eventually led to. The second reason why I have deleted it is because the negative overtones are simply not justified. Analepsis is part of every methodology of scientific enquiry or creative process. Every advance in human science has begun with an inspiration based on nothing other than intuition, which then leads to the development of a dialectic that underpins it. A famous example is Issac Newton and his considerations on the action of an apple falling from a tree, which led him eventually to the universal law of gravitation.Tashkop 08:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources

This article is only mildly useful to me because it cites only one source. I would like to track down some of the criticisms of Graves and evaluate them myself; I know his scholarship is much maligned, but I would like to read detailed factual critiques rather than mere rumours. Does anyone know of good critiques that could be listed at the bottom of the article? Fuzzypeg☻ 22:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making a start, Bloodofox. If you know of any sources that actually provide an evidence based argument of facts, that would be the ultimate! Anyone else? Thanks,  Fuzzypeg  ^talk  20:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. They are certainly out there as I have seen them myself. Unfortunately, I can't recall exactly where.. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a bibliography to this article. A good place for you to start might be the introduction, commentary, etc, by Grevel Lindop for the 1995 Carcanet Press ed of The WG. And there is also the collection of essays edited by Firla & Lindop (2003).:L107:L107 (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The quotes from Hilda Ellis Davidson both come from a single brief sentence in her book, which is the only sentence on the subject of Graves and his work. It is purely a summary of Juliette Wood's comments in her article, and Davidson clearly cites it as such. So... it seems odd that we would take even one quotation, let alone break it into two (making it seem to have come from a more extended discussion), from a passing and purely derivative mention. I don't know what the WP guidelines say on this, but it seems to me we should be simply citing Wood, not citing citations of Wood, if you get what I mean. Maybe whoever added these quotes liked Davidson's blunt wording, and that's why they chose to quote her, but I don't think we'd lose much by giving our own summary wording. In fact, we might manage a more accurate summary than Davidson does: she reports that Graves "has no authority" on early Celtic literature, whereas Wood emphasises his comparatively sophisticated knowledge of sources, and says "His command of the scholarship is impressive, and still he gets it wrong." The emphasis is quite different to saying he "has no authority". Fuzzypeg★ 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a summary of the reference, but Davidson's opinion plainly stated ("Robert Graves's book, The White Goddess (1961), has misled many innocent readers with eloquent but deceptive statement about a nebulous goddess in early Celtic literature, on which he was no authority (Wood 1996:10ff)"). She does point to the Wood reference, but it is also clearly a verdict she shares. Therefore I see no issue with the Davidson quote, which I added, and I note that Davidson was one of the foremost experts in the field (and her work far more respected than that of, say, the error-ridden work of Hutton), making her straightforward dismissal of Graves particularly notable. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Celtic Astrology

This section is such rubbish that I feel obliged to edit it almost immediately. The Celtic Astrology popularised by new age authors is not part of the White Goddess, so this comment should be moved to Criticism or indeed removed. His theory is merely that of a calendar, which may be justifiably criticised. The statement that he attributes ″two letters each to winter solstice (A/I), Sagittarius (B/R), spring equinox (O/E) and Gemini (D/T)″ is extremely misleading, based on a reading of a diagram in chapter 21, which attempts to correlate the oghams with the classical zodiac. This section is out of context and probably should be removed. ″The disadvantage of the Zodiac is, indeed, its failure to be a perpetual calendar like the Beth-Luis-Nion tree sequence which makes no attempt to relate the equinoxes and the solstices to the twelve constellations of the Zodiac″. Tim flatus (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Please read the book before considering any reversions. Tim flatus (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Misdating texts

"for example, the Hanes Taliesin a 16th-18th century text which Graves believed originated centuries earlier"

I think unfairly. Graves was familiar with at least Nash's translations, Lady Guest's notes and Dr Ifor Williams "Lectures on Early Welsh Poetry". He was been aware that it was considered to be a 12th/13th century romance, possibly going back to a 9th century original. I think this claim needs much better substantiation than the referenced "The Concept of the Goddess" article. Other criticisms are supportable and no-one has mentioned the fact that he was working off English translations not well regarded for their accuracy. Graves also includes many disclaimers that he was not a Welsh speaker or medieval historian and felt himself unqualified for the task. I think it would be better to go back Wood's original statement: "Fascinating as Graves is, the combination of poor philology, inadequate texts and out-of-date archaeology needs to be pointed out." (my italics) Tim flatus (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. The poem "Hanes Taliesin" is part of the c.14th "Llyfr Taliesin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim flatus (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Roebuck in the Thicket?

Does this title imply that Graves had thought that "Ram" in the thicket in Genesis 22 was really a Dear? Because I recently came to that conclusion form studying the relevant Hebrew words, and thought no one had done so before me.--JaredMithrandir (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Removed Druantia section

I can't find sources that back up the claim that Robert Grave's "hypothetical Gallic tree goddess" Druantia is now an established pagan deity. In the book itself, that name is only mentioned once, and is just that - a mention: "Though Druantia, the name of the Gallic Fir-goddess, contains no reference to her own tree, it makes her 'Queen of the Druids' and therefore mother of the whole tree-calendar" (191). And that's it. The section cited a book by DJ Conway, which I don't have access to, so maybe there's more lore on Druantia there that justifies the goddess appearing in wiki in her own right. But I still don't think a section on Druantia is appropriate for The White Goddess page.

Here's the section that I removed:

In ''The White Goddess'', Graves proposed a hypothetical [[Gauls|Gallic]] tree goddess, [[Druantia]], who has become somewhat popular with contemporary [[Paganism (contemporary)|Neopagans]]. Druantia is an archetype of the eternal mother as seen in the [[evergreen]] boughs. Her name is believed to be derived from the [[Celtic nations|Celtic]] word for [[oak]] trees, *{{lang|cel|drus}} or *{{lang|cel|deru}}.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Wisdom of Trees |author=Jane Gifford |year=2006 |publisher=Springer |isbn=1-397-81402-0 |page=146 }}</ref> She is known as "Queen of the [[Druids]]". She is a goddess of fertility for both plants & humans, ruling over sexual activities & passion. She also rules protection of trees, knowledge, creativity.<ref>{{cite book |title=Celtic Magic |author=Deanna J. Conway |year=2006 |publisher=Llewellyn Publications |isbn=0-87542-136-9 |page=[https://archive.org/details/celticmagic00conw/page/n126 109] |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/celticmagic00conw }}</ref>

-CaptainJae (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would you remove a sourced section, just because you don't have access to one of the sources? Have you got some ulterior motive for this action? A quick search on Google turns up numerous results. Mostly pagan sites. However, I do believe it is significant enough that it should be restored. From my limited knowledge Druantia is a creation of Robert Graves. She is certainly not named after the Fir or the oak tree. From my recollection some of the names of the Old Irish alphabet are actually names of trees, and thus the letter D is "duir" (oak). Druantia was not covered in any lecture in my paleography classes of Old Irish, and I have not seen any reference to her in any scholarly article on the Druid religion. She is certainly not the "White Goddess". There is no way to get white from any part of Druantia, from any of the ancient Celtic languages. So while there may be only one reference to her in his book, he is undoubtedly the creator of the goddess and the word. Hence, the only place she belongs is in this article, and the creation of a goddess is certainly worthy of appearing in it's own section. There are enough references to the name on the Internet and in books, to warrant having the section, so that interested researchers have an authoritative source of the origin of the goddess and the word.

— Celtic hackr (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed that sourced section because it has nothing to do with Robert Graves' White Goddess. It can certainly go in DJ Conway's page; I don't feel it's appropriate here. As I stated, there is a single instance of the name in White Goddess and Graves makes no claim as to her creation. Rather than start an edit war, I'll leave your change in place and hope someone else can weigh in. -CaptainJae (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My first WP contribution here: The Druantia section is problematic. It gives the impression that Graves' Druantia is, for example, derived from the Celtic word for oak and ruled over sexual activities, yet those descriptions are, as I understand it, entirely attributable to DJ Conway. Why would we have DJ Conway's version of Druantia if Graves is her creator (as stated by Celtic hackr)? If there should be a separate section at all, it should contain Graves' own brief description of Durantia, including that she is "Queen of the Druids", but remove everything from Conway: "Druantia is an archetype of the eternal mother as seen in the evergreen boughs. Her name is believed to be derived from the Celtic word for oak trees, *drus or *deru.[7] She is a goddess of fertility for both plants & humans, ruling over sexual activities & passion. She also rules protection of trees, knowledge, creativity.[8]" Or, if not remove it, at least it should be made clear that Conway's Druantia is to describe a contemporary Neopagan interpretation of the deity rather than the one of Graves' making.

-Matocinegraph (talk) 4:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)