DISKUS Volume 6 (2000) http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/religionswissenschaft/journal/diskus DRUIDS AND BRAHMINS: A CASE OF MISTAKEN IDENTITY? Catherine Robinson Senior Lecturer Study of Religions Department Bath Spa University College, UK Email: c.robinson@bathspa.ac.uk --------------------- ABSTRACT In an historical examination of the idea that the beliefs and practices of Druids and Brahmins were and are in some way related, this paper examines the literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries which sought to establish such connections. In doing so, the author chronicles developments in the history of ideas and changing scholarly perceptions of both Brahmins and Druids, as well as showing how this relationship figures in contemporary images of Druids. --------------------- During the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries, writers on both Britain and India identified Druids and Brahmins with one another. <1> No attempt will be made to evaluate whether this identification was credible given the then current level of knowledge and understanding. Instead, this identification is explored with a view to suggesting how (and, in so far as this is possible, why) it came to be made and what was involved in so doing. That this identification was made as it was does offer an insight into a time when current academic disciplines were in their infancy but also when idealised images of ancient and eastern religious figures were already apparent. Possibly such a comparison of Druids and Brahmins is of more than merely antiquarian interest because there are significant strands of continuity between past and present. It was the Renaissance which, through the revival of the Classical heritage, brought Druids to the fore and gave rise to further speculation about a long-lost ancient world inhabited by the distant ancestors (Piggott 1985a: 123). Probably the most famous of the classical texts brought to prominence by Renaissance scholarship was Julius Caesar's chronicle of the conquest of Gaul. Julius Caesar had described the Gallic Druids in some detail, their power and privilege, religious functions and social roles, as well as attributing the origins of Druidry to Britain whither he recorded the Gauls travelled to learn Druidic lore (The Conquest of Gaul I.i; Caesar 1951: 31-3). Yet Julius Caesar was only one of the classical authors whose work was available in the post-Renaissance period and studied with a view to rediscovering the Druids. <2> Henceforward, studies of Druids were produced in considerable numbers from a variety of perspectives with Druids variously portrayed as vicious and cruel, at one extreme, and noble and venerable, at the other. In many of these studies, Druids, vested with romantic allure, were portrayed as possessing an antique splendour. They appeared as mysterious priests, seers and thinkers, prophets, soothsayers and teachers, of ages immemorial, whose sacred rites were performed in sylvan glades veiled by swirling primordial mists. <3> Beyond the uncritical confusion of a little fact and a lot of fiction, the character and conduct of Druids, who they were and what they did, was far from clear. Yet, in an often perplexing, sometimes fantastic, array of ideas about the dawn of time, Druids could be compared with other priests, including Brahmins. Brahmins too figured in Greek and Latin sources. Indeed, a feature of earlier and later writing on the philosophy of olden times was the way in which Druids and Brahmins were bracketed together in legendary and semi-legendary references to the greatness of the sages of the ancient world. Among the earlier references to both Druids and Brahmins was that made by Clement of Alexandria during the second century in his argument that Greek philosophy was indebted to barbarians where he included Druids and Brahmins in a long list of the barbarian philosophers of antiquity (The Miscellanies I.xv; Clement 1867: 398-9).<4> Among the later references to both Druids and Brahmins was that made by Robert Burton during the seventeenth century in connection with Apollonius of Tyana <5> where he included British Druids and Indian Brahmins along with the wise men of other peoples ('Democritus to the Reader'; Burton 1932: 42). Given the fascination felt for Druids in the post-Renaissance period, when the distant past exerted a powerful hold over European intellectual life, perhaps such references when coupled with unprecedented access to the Indian sub-continent contributed towards modern speculation about the relationship between Druids and Brahmins. From the mid eighteenth century onwards, British domination over the Indian sub-continent established the conditions under which a full and comprehensive study of all things Indian could be undertaken. This study encompassed India's history and geography, flora and fauna, people and language, culture and civilisation among an array of subjects. For various reasons, a significant area of enquiry was Indian religion. <6> In part, the importance attached to Indian religion reflected the centrality of religion in contemporary British society, albeit that many in Britain were already contesting the truth and validity as well as the nature and scope of religion. However, it also reflected common assumptions about the special foundational and integrative role of religion in Indian society where religion was regarded as shaping and pervading every aspect of life. Consistent with this, it was widely believed that an understanding of Indians would follow from an understanding of Indian religions. Where Indian religion was concerned, commentators recognised that Brahmins occupied a privileged position as an indigenous elite. Brahmins saw themselves as sacred specialists and guardians of primeval mysteries, upholding timeless truths in an eternal tradition. Again, as in the case of Druids, there was a degree of ambivalence in the portrayal of Brahmins, with some denouncing what they saw as superstitious priestcraft while others hailed the profundity of their beliefs and the piety of their behaviour. The grounds for comparison between Druids and Brahmins were thus established since such descriptions of Brahmins showed some significant similarities with the descriptions of Druids. Possibly something of the appeal of the comparison of the two was that Brahmins seemed to belong to an antiquity preserved into the present and so promised to provide an insight into Druids whose origins lay in that far distant past. There again, what was known about Druids in ancient Europe could be conceived as casting a new light on Brahmins in modern India. This accords with the outlook of the Romantic movement which vested authenticity in emotion and imagination and thus sought to find spirituality in the Orient as in the ancient Occident where religion was interpreted in terms of subjective experience and personal mysticism (Sharpe 1975: 20). Yet other influences may also have played their part, from practical considerations to rationalist philosophy. For instance, Edward Davies' ideas contributed towards the Celtic revival which was often associated with a nationalist agenda (Piggott 1985a: 164) whereas Alexander Dow's account was influenced by deist ideas about a common essence to religions underlying their superficial external differences (Marshall 1970: 26-7). Whatever was the motivation for the comparison between Druids and Brahmins for writers on both Britain and India during the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth century, it was popular then and retained, indeed in some ways even increased, its attraction. Before examining this comparison, a number of preliminary issues have to be raised about the interpretation of such material. One consideration is that this material originated in a period which largely predated the standardisation of orthography and typography in the conventional style. Another complicating factor is that there was then no common system of transliteration and transcription of Indian languages into English. Consequently, some terms can be identified only tentatively, if at all. Yet possibly more problematic still for present purposes is that the conceptual categories which are now widely known and generally applied, albeit increasingly criticised, especially in respect of religions and races, are either totally absent or still in a state of formation. This means that even where a term can be identified with some certainty, what it denotes cannot always be determined with the same degree of confidence. Moreover, it is obvious that much of what was once counted as evidence and what was once accepted as the proper exposition of that evidence would no longer be taken seriously in academic circles. This is because scholarly standards have been raised by the development of a range of methodologies, superseding the over-reliance on dubious philology, and by the enhancement of the volume and quality of information available, exposing the speculative reasoning and sweeping judgements of earlier works. <7> The comparison between Druids and Brahmins in the works discussed below varies from brief allusions to the classical inheritance to extraordinarily elaborate arguments which connect Druids and Brahmins through intricate and involved reasoning. <8> These allusions and arguments, however, reveal less about Druids and Brahmins than they do about the attitudes of their authors though this phenomenon is, of course, far from unique and has often been remarked upon. <9> In this instance, there was a concentration on classical material which was often read literally without differentiating any historical core from mythic embellishments. There was also a widespread acceptance of an Old Testament based chronology into which framework the whole of antiquity had to be fitted and with which any other source of information regarding the ancient world had to be reconciled (cf. Piggott 1985a: 124). What is more, the controversies of the age made a significant impact. A notable example of this is the question of whether spiritual truths could be found outwith Christianity and, if so, whether these truths had been intuited through the independent exercise of reason or preserved over millennia from a primordial revelation to a unified humanity (c.f. Marshall 1970: 22-3). Clearly, the comparison between Druids and Brahmins variously drawn by Rueben Burrow, Thomas Maurice, Godfrey Higgins, Edward Davies and Alexander Dow can be seen as a period piece, not only in the chosen object, but also in the characteristic mode, of study. In an early essay published in 'Asiatic Researches' and entitled 'A Proof that the Hindoos had the Binomial Theorem', Reuben Burrow asserted that Indians had a knowledge of algebra comparable with leading western theorists (Burrow n.d.: 390-5). He further claimed that Indian religion, language and learning had influenced other cultures and civilisations (Burrow n.d.: 388-90). He enumerated diverse examples to support this contention that India's sphere of influence extended far beyond the sub-continent, listing examples of how Indian religious beliefs and practices had been replicated in the West (Burrow n.d.: 388-90). <10> Significantly, he identified British Druids with Indian Brahmins and insisted that his identification of Druids as Brahmins was 'beyond the least shadow of doubt' (Burrow n.d.: 389), although precisely what he meant by Druids and Brahmins in this context is not clear. <11> This essay had a powerful impact on Thomas Maurice who was inspired to address in one of the volumes of his 'Indian Antiquities' the issue it raised of the relationship between Druids and Brahmins. Introducing 'A Dissertation on the Indian Origin of the Druids and on the Striking Affinity which the Religious Rites and Ceremonies, Anciently Practised in the British Islands, bore to those of the Brahmins', Thomas Maurice referred to Burrow's earlier work as having established the fact that the genesis of Druidry was found in Asia (Maurice 1812: iv-v). The purpose of his study as set out in the preface was to explore Burrow's thesis in much greater depth and detail (Maurice 1812: v), a subject moreover which commended itself to him as being relevant both to Britain and to India (Maurice 1812: iii). The starting-point of Maurice's discussion was the statement 'that the celebrated order of Druids ... were the immediate descendants of a tribe of Brahmins' (Maurice 1812: 3-4). What followed was a complex and convoluted account of the ancient world and the migration of its peoples predicated upon the biblical events of the Great Flood and the destruction of the Tower of Babel (Maurice 1812: 2ff.). The Brahmin religion was traced even further back than settlement in India (Maurice 1812: 196-7). However, in India this religion took on a new form when the laws that had been introduced to the sub-continent were 'enlarged, purified and accommodated' to the changed conditions (Maurice 1812: 197). Yet this Brahmin religion was composed of a number of different groups, affiliated with 'Brahma, Veeshnu, Seeva and Buddha' (Maurice 1812: 197). <12> According to Maurice, it was those Brahmin worshippers 'of the last-mentioned holy personage' located in Tibet, for him the northernmost area of India, who were responsible for bringing the Brahmin religion, with which he equated Druidry, to Britain (Maurice 1812: 197). These Brahmins, also said by him to be 'versed in the sacred and civil institutes of Brahma' (Maurice 1812: 15-16), were supposed to have migrated throughout Asia, mixed with Celtic peoples and then migrated into Europe until eventually they reached Britain in the far West (Maurice 1812: 197). So it was that 'the Druid, that is, Brahmin system of superstition [was founded] in ancient Britain' (Maurice 1812: 197). As may already have become apparent, Maurice's account of the Brahminical origins of Druidry, especially the role of one particular group of Brahmins, requires further explanation. So far as 'Buddha' was concerned, Maurice insisted that there had been two figures. His argument turned on the earlier of the two figures, dated to the beginning of the present kali yuga and described as the husband of a woman called 'Ila' whose father had survived the great flood by boarding an ark (Maurice 1812: 87). It was this earlier figure whom he connected with Hermes, Mercury and Woden and was at pains to distinguish from his later namesake and teacher of atheism (Maurice 1812: v). He called the former an avatara or divine incarnation while the latter he considered only to have basked in the reflected glory of his far greater predecessor (Maurice 1812: 83-4). Thus, when Maurice attributed Druidry to Brahmins, it was the earlier of the two figures he had in mind as the object of their devotion, not least because he assigned a relatively early date to Druidry (Maurice 1812: 83). In so doing, Maurice was by no means claiming that followers of Shakyamuni Buddha were the founders of Druidry since he gave Siddhartha Gautama only secondary status. On the contrary, the group of Brahmins whom he regarded as the originators of Druidry were worshippers of another figure altogether. <13> Maurice sought to substantiate this hypothesis by adducing evidence about ancient Britain, India and indeed related societies from a range of classical and antiquarian sources (Maurice 1812: 33). He explained the etymology of the word Druid as deriving from the Celtic word for oak and related it to the extant Welsh variants, commenting that these names recalled 'the Sanscreet name of the old Brahmins, of the forest of Gandharvas, which occurs so often in the Sacontala' (Maurice 1812: 24-5). This term for Brahmins here mentioned was 'Dervasas' <14> which he also linked with the word Dervish, adding that Dervishes in the East and Druids in the West were of the same kind only with slightly different names (Maurice 1812: 25).Further advancing his case, he appealed to what he regarded as the fundamental theological tenets common to the belief-systems of Druids and Brahmins. These common tenets were belief in the activity of a benevolent deity and the existence of an eternal transmigrating soul which he considered to be 'those grand and essential principia of all true religion' (Maurice 1812: 34). He also offered some more detailed comparisons in order to demonstrate the close similarities between Druids and Brahmins necessary to identify the one with the other (Maurice 1812: 33). Among the similarities which he indicated were their superior social status as members of either a British or an Indian elite (Maurice 1812: 175), their shared esotericism (Maurice 1812: 177) and lengthy periods of study preparatory to initiation (Maurice 1812: 178). He even found similarities in the appearance and accoutrements of Druids and Brahmins, both wearing white robes and high head-dresses (Maurice 1812: 185-6), both using rosaries (Maurice 1812: 166) and carrying staffs (Maurice 1812: 182). These similarities were reinforced by any number of additional comparisons between the religions of ancient Britain and India. These comparisons included ancient British and Indian festival calendars (Maurice 1812: 52ff.), sacred architecture (Maurice 1812: 106ff.), cosmology (Maurice 1812: 169ff.) and symbology (Maurice 1812: 187ff.), suggesting that there were strong connections between them [partially] explicable in terms of the kinship of Druids and Brahmins. Godfrey Higgins' treatise 'The Celtic Druids' made use of many of the same ideas and sources as Maurice's work (e.g. Higgins 1829: 150ff.) in the course of what its subtitle described as 'an attempt to shew, that the Druids were the priests of Oriental Colonies who emigrated from India'. Higgins stated that the Druids were the priests of the ancient Celts whom he classified as 'a colony from the first race of people' (Higgins 1829: xcvi). By reference to this first race, he meant survivors of the Great Flood who had found sanctuary in the Himalaya mountains. He postulated that after an interval during which the survivors' numbers grew, colonies were formed (Higgins 1829: 69). It was his opinion that the Indian sub-continent would have been an early area of occupation and, in consequence, its inhabitants would still display many of the qualities of their antediluvian ancestors, having preserved their learning and lifestyle as well as religion from former times (Higgins 1829: 66). To prove his theory of humanity's Himalayan home after the Great Flood, he marshalled material from the Indian heritage which for him was an authentic witness to the distant past. In this connection, he contended that in India it was believed that the ark came to rest near Bactriana in the Himalaya mountains (Higgins 1829: 43) and that the knowledge and wisdom of that place had originated farther to the north (Higgins 1829: 46). <15> For Higgins, India, however important and influential, was but one area of occupation. Indeed, he sketched the movement of colonies across the landmasses of Asia, Africa and Europe, one group proceeding by a northerly route, another by a southerly route, until both reached Britain in the West (Higgins 1829: xcvi c.f. 67). On the specific subject of the relationship between Druids and Brahmins (although exactly what he meant when referring to Brahmins was far from clear), Higgins quoted from another commentator. The statement he quoted acknowledged that 'the complete identity of the old superstitions of the Druids, the Magi, and the Bramins has been ... satisfactorily established' by Maurice among others (Higgins 1829: 154). For his own part, Higgins argued that Druids were priests and that the Druidical priesthood, the Brahminical priesthood and indeed all priesthoods were essentially one and the same (Higgins 1829: 277). In every instance, he wrote, these priesthoods were dedicated to the worship of God with such differences as there were between them represented as variations on a theme and as consequences of spatial and temporal distance (Higgins 1829: 277). He also indicated that both Druids and Brahmins believed in the eternality of the transmigrating soul, though he regarded this belief to be so prevalent that there was hardly an ancient tradition in which its vestiges could not be detected (Higgins 1829: 283). Not only did Druids and Brahmins share a fundamental religious outlook, but he suggested the possibility of their having been in contact with each other in a long-lost past. He proposed that Druids and Brahmins together with the Magi of Persia could have sent each other secret messages by means of a special system of communication using tree leaves which only such adepts as themselves would have been able to interpret (Higgins 1829: 26-7). In turn, Higgins surmised, this interchange of ideas between Druids and Brahmins could have facilitated decisions about common courses of action, for example in respect of the timing and celebration of festivals in Britain and India (Higgins 1829: 161). Moreover, he stressed that a priest of the ancient world, be he Druid or Brahmin, would have benefited from safe passage on his travels from India to Britain by virtue of his holy person (Higgins 1829: 161). Whether and to what extent Druids and Brahmins were related was widely debated without any consensus being reached. For Edward Davies in his 'Celtic Researches', as for others, they were linked by Pythagoras. Davies portrayed Pythagoras as a student of the Druids from whom he learned the doctrine of transmigration (Davies 1804: 186), thus explaining the strong similarities between Pythagorean and Druidical tenets which he had already noted (Davies 1804: 184). Further to this, he cited the conviction that Pythagoras was also taught by Brahmins (Davies 1804: 184), hypothesising that it could have been the Druids who advised Pythagoras to seek out the Brahmins in 'a mutual intercourse, between the Sages of the east and the west' (Davies 1804: 197). Like Burrow, Maurice and Higgins, therefore, Davies saw links between the religions of ancient Britain and India. An example of this given by Davies was that 'Menw of the three Veds, one of the masters of the mysterious and secret science, amongst the Cymry, ... is the same character and personage with Menu, author of the Vedas' (Davies 1804: 197). <16> In contrast to Burrow, Maurice and Higgins, however, who saw India in whatever sense as primary and Britain as secondary, Davies accorded priority to Britain over India. This was evident in his treatment of Indian ideas apparently identifying Britain as a sacred land of the West wherein was to be found 'the abode of the Pitris, who were the fathers of the human race' (Davies 1804: 198). <17> His claim was that this belief about the Pitris would not have arisen if India itself had been the origin of these beliefs, since in such circumstances the home of the Pitris would have been located somewhere in India (Davies 1804: 198-9). He insisted that the British location of the home of the Pitris proved that reverence for the Pitris on the part of Indians had come 'from the religion of that race [inhabitants of Britain], in whose land [Britain] those consecrated personages were acknowledged, uniformly, to have resided' (Davies 1804: 199). So, despite his very different perspective on the roles of Britain and India, Davies too regarded Druids and Brahmins as related. Alexander Dow also remarked upon this relationship between Druids and Brahmins in the first volume of 'The History of Hindustan'. His introduction to 'A Dissertation concerning the Customs, Manners, Language, Religion and Philosophy of the Hindoos' even drew a parallel between his contemporaries' criticism of Greek and Roman scholars and potential future criticism of the British. Just as Greek and Roman scholars were criticised for failing to study the religion of the Druids, British scholars might also be criticised if they failed to study the religion of the Asian peoples with whom they came into contact (Dow 1770: xix). It was in such a context that he recalled how in the ancient world Brahmins had been greatly esteemed for their wisdom but that the basis of this great esteem had not been investigated hitherto (Dow 1770: xix). This was what he now sought to do, in the process rejecting what he characterised as the generally negative attitude of Europeans towards Brahmins in favour of a much more positive estimation of them and their past learning (Dow 1770: xxi). Designating the Brahmins as the highest of the four tribes (Dow 1770: xxxii), <18> in discussing their beliefs he included the doctrine of transmigration (Dow 1770: liii). This was where, as Davies was later to do, he linked Druids and Brahmins on the grounds that the doctrine was not 'peculiar to the Brahmins'(Dow 1770: liii). On the contrary, he argued that the doctrine had 'descended from the Druids of Europe, to the Greeks' (Dow 1770: liii-liv). Yet in Dow's case, even more than in Davies', the comparison between Druids and Brahmins scarcely amounted to anything more than a passing mention. This comparison between Druids and Brahmins, however differently it is described, is obviously a product of the late eighteenth and early to mid nineteenth centuries. However, it can be located in the context of ongoing academic studies into common Indo-European origins, some of which have considered the subject of Druids and Brahmins. William Jones, a contemporary of the writers discussed above, had commented on the similarities between the deities worshipped in ancient Greece and Italy and in India, which he attributed to an association between these peoples (Jones n.d.). In the nineteenth century, Friedrich Max Muller's analysis of Indo-European language and culture included Indians and Europeans as descendants of the same ancient Aryan family with a shared religious heritage (e.g. Muller 1883). More recently, Georges Dumezil has proposed a tripartite division of Indo-European society and divinity in which priests and judges, warriors, and farmers and artisans respectively are related to different members of the pantheon. Here he has linked Druids and Brahmins, along with other ancient priesthoods, as a sacerdotal class (York 1995: 394-5, 400). Even so, Indo-European studies, the academic search for a proto-Indo-European past, has fallen out of favour and in any case only constitutes one, and arguably not the most significant, legacy of antiquarian writing on Druids and Brahmins. Perhaps its most significant legacy is found in the continuing Western fascination for indigenous and Eastern spiritual paths. This fascination is now pursued in an increasingly plural religious scene marked by a growing acceptance of individual choice and personal experimentation along with a tendency to acquire aspects of diverse traditions for one's own spiritual purposes. The decline of conventional institutionalised religiosity in the West during the modern period, and especially the rise of the counter-culture in the mid twentieth century, have stimulated interest in both indigenous paganism and Eastern wisdom. Indeed, though different in many ways, these foci of western spiritual aspiration share certain characteristics in being conceived as antithetical to [conventional] Christianity. As such they are often combined to create a perennial and pervasive alternative tradition by reference to which the norms and values of the mainstream can be critiqued. This may explain why a dimension of the contemporary representation of Druids has been the explicit links made with many religions as well as an emphasis upon the diverse religious adherence of Druids. Something of this portrayal of Druids was evident in an exhibition entitled 'The Druids: Past and Present' held at Devizes Museum in the South West of England between 8 May and 28 August 1999. It had been scheduled to coincide with the total solar eclipse in South-West England as an event which would be celebrated by pagan groups and widely observed by members of such groups visiting sacred sites. This exhibition, planned and prepared in consultation with modern UK Druid Orders, included a section on religion which made typically sweeping claims about Druidry's associations with other faiths and its multi-faith membership. The exhibition literature indicated that Druidry had links with religions such as the native traditions of America, Australasia, Africa and Asia. It further indicated that while many Druids were pagan, here specifying some distinct strands within paganism, many were Christian, Jewish and Hindu. Though these points were not developed in detail, they do suggest that the comparison between Druids and Brahmins or a very similar comparison may again come to the fore. More generally, pagans have appreciated the advantages of allying paganism with Hinduism, now acknowledged as one of the 'world religions' and of these the only one which, in terms of its theology and cosmology, could conceivably be appropriated by pagans. This desire for respectability, or at least for respect from society, on the part of pagans was expressed in a conference on Christian-Pagan dialogue at King's College, London in 1995. During discussions at this conference it was stated that Hinduism was a form of paganism. That Hinduism was pagan was also asserted by Prudence Jones and Nigel Pennick in 'A History of Pagan Europe'. They defined as pagan polytheistic religions which revere nature and worship the divine feminine, and, with reference to these criteria, concluded that Hinduism was pagan (Jones and Pennick 1995: 20). This obviously ignores other characteristics commonly attributed to Hinduism; its monistic and monotheistic schools of thought, its denial of the reality or value of the world and its affirmation of the impersonal conception of ultimate reality. This also recalls Orientalist stereotypes in perpetuating the process by which the West defines the East and thereby dominates it (c.f. Said 1995). Certainly, this representation of Hinduism runs counter to the main thrust of Hindu self-promotion in the modern period when Hindu propagandists have striven to establish the credentials of Hinduism as a 'real' religion by denying any taint of the pagan (hence demonic). In addition, this description of Hinduism would probably give rise to acute anxieties in the Hindu community about the status of their religion. It is less clear that the community would be as concerned about the way in which an International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) devotee made a connection between pagans and Hindus. Addressing a group of undergraduate Religious Studies students, this spokesperson for a contemporary devotional movement in the tradition of a sixteenth century Bengali saint stressed that those who built and worshipped at Stonehenge were Indo-European people just as were the ancestors of today's Hindus. However, this approach seems to be rather unusual and to reflect the devotee's perception of the leanings of the specific student audience based on their having opted to study New Religious Movements. In any case, this was another instance of pagan-Hindu ties, this time not from a pagan but from a Hindu perspective, though the latter term is problematic when applied to ISKCON given its predominantly Western composition. In present-day pronouncements connecting pagans and Hindus, there is more than an echo of past theories identifying Druids and Brahmins with one another. Thus it seems quite possible that these theories could themselves influence future developments in popular religiosity and consequently the study of religions. Certainly, the comparison between Druids and Brahmins cannot be relegated so easily to the rank of curiosity in the history of ideas. NOTES <1> The line of enquiry in this paper was suggested by observations made by John Drew in 'India and the Romantic Imagination' in the context of a discussion of William Jones. There he states: 'At this time [the late eighteenth century] identifications were being sought between the Druids, as Caesar had described them, and the Brahmins, whose myths and forms of worship were used to supply the key to the ancient religious life of Britain' (Drew 1987: 50). He gives examples of classical and Renaissance texts linking Druids and Brahmins before referring to modern writers who did likewise (Drew 1987: 50-1). This paper seeks to extend his analysis and, in particular, draw out its implications for the study of religions. In this, it is informed by discussions with colleagues at Bath Spa University College, especially Marion Bowman (who has subsequently moved to The Open University) and Denise Cush. <2> Nora Chadwick analyses the classical references to Druids, distinguishing the Posidonian from the Alexandrian traditions. Whereas the former adopted a generally factual approach, the latter espoused a more idealised image of Druids (Chadwick 1997: 11ff., 51ff.) Such bias was subsequently reproduced in studies based on these sources though factors other than the slant of the material may have come into play. <3> For a full discussion of the myriad images and interpretations of Druids, see Piggott 1985a: 123ff. See also Piggott 1985b; 1989. <4> Even so, Clement of Alexandria associated Druids with the Gauls while he listed the philosophers of the Celts separately (The Miscellanies I.xv; Clement 1867: 398). So far as India was concerned, he listed Gymnosophists before citing Brahmins as one of two sub-types of Indian philosopher (The Miscellanies I.xv; Clement 1867: 398-9). Another early reference to Druids which may plausibly be interpreted as referring to Brahmins too was Diogenes Laertius' discussion of the idea that philosophy had its beginnings with the barbarians (The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers I.i; Laertius 1853:3). There, in addition to the Druids of the Celts and Gauls, he mentioned the Gymnosophists of the Indians (The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers I.i; Laertius 1853: 3). Both Clement of Alexandria and Diogenes Laertius are considered by Nora Chadwick as standing in the Alexandrian tradition along with Dio Chrysostum. Chadwick treats Dio Chrysostum's earlier discussion of the philosophical prowess of the Druids, placing them on a par with Brahmins, as typical of the Alexandrian tradition's tendency to cite Druids and Brahmins in the same positive context (Oratorio XLIX; Chadwick 1997: 59). <5> Flavius Philostratus' biography of Apollonius of Tyana recorded that Apollonius had conversed with Indian Brahmins (The Life of Apollonius of Tyana I.ii; Philostratus 1912: 7) and also put on record his admiration for them (The Life of Apollonius of Tyana III.xv; Philostratus 1912: 257). <6> Despite the tendency to emphasise the role of British rule in promoting Indology as a discipline, studies of Indian religion had been undertaken as much as two hundred years previously by European scholars (Barot 1994: 69). Explanations of the lack of impact made by these earlier studies include their comparative superficiality of treatment (Marshall 1970: 2) and the absence of historical depth (Basham 1967: 4). Another contributory factor in this discontinuity between earlier and later studies was surely the religious divisions within Europe as many of the earlier studies were the work of Catholic scholars whose findings would be either unfamiliar to scholars from Reformed or Protestant backgrounds or, if known, highly suspect. <7> This is not to suggest that present-day popular and polemic writing is necessarily of a higher standard than that produced by antiquarian writers in the past. However, academic criteria have become far more rigorous and exacting over the last two centuries, increasing the divide between different styles of literature. <8> The analysis that follows is to some extent provisional as other works by the same authors have not been examined to establish their individual interests and the scope of the discussion has not been extended to other authors who also linked Druids and Brahmins. Even so, the analysis does show that a comparison between Druids and Brahmins once commanded a great deal of attention and the examples chosen are representative of the range of views expressed. <9> For example, in his study on Druids Piggott mentions 'a past-as-wished-for' which he defines as 'a convenient selection of the evidence ... fitted into a predetermined intellectual or emotional pattern' (Piggott 1985a: 11). Similarly, Marshall's account of early British attempts to understand Hinduism acknowledges that 'as Europeans have always tended to do, they created Hinduism in their own image' (Marshall 1970: 43). <10> These religious beliefs and practices have been labelled Indian because Burrow's usage of 'Hindoo' seems to conform with the archaic geographic, ethnographic and cultural sense of the word, a meaning now carried by the word Indian. Perhaps, then, Burrow's reference to 'the Hindoo religion' (Burrow n.d.: 388) should not be read not as referring to Hinduism but instead to Indian religion[s]. Similarly, perhaps his other references to 'Hindoo' in relation to various branches of knowledge should also be regarded as references to Indian branches of knowledge. <11> It is noteworthy that Burrow, having equated Druids with Brahmins, rejected the possibility that the Druids had been killed and their knowledge lost, suggesting that 'it is much more likely that they turned Schoolmasters, and Freemasons, and Fortune-tellers' (Burrow n.d.: 389). <12> Thus the groups were affiliated with the Hindu Gods Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva (sometimes described as the trimurti or trinity of the creator, preserver and destroyer). For the meaning of 'Buddha', see below. <13> Maurice's account of the earlier and later 'Buddha' conflates or confuses two different characters, Budha and Buddha (Monier-Williams 1899: 734 c.f. 733). In Hindu mythology, Budha, who with his wife Ila established the lunar dynasty, was the son-in-law of Manu, the one survivor of a great flood (Klostermaier 1994: 125). This would seem to be the character Maurice meant when he mentioned the earlier of the two figures, bearing in mind that in Hindu mythology Budha was identified with Mercury (Klostermaier 1994: 123). Another reason for proposing this is that Manu could be compared with the biblical patriarch Noah and, indeed, Maurice aligned the earlier of the two figures with the family of Noah (Maurice 1812: vi). How significant this point is largely depends upon whether the association with Noah is specific as the man married to Noah's daughter or general on the grounds that Noah is the ancestor of all humanity. Unfortunately, this differentiation of Budha from Buddha cannot be applied to Maurice's argument. While variant spellings are found (principally 'Buddha' and 'Boodh' though also 'Budia' and Bhood'), he used 'Buddha' to refer to both earlier and later figures in the preface and in the main text he used both 'Buddha' and 'Boodh' to refer to the earlier figure (Maurice 1812: v c.f. 88,87). <14> Maurice included a supporting quotation, 'Who, like the choleric Dervasas, has power to consume, like raging fire, whatever offends him?' (Maurice 1812: 25).Presumably his source was Kalidasa's play Sakuntala in which a character called Durvasas featured, a sage who cursed the love-struck heroine for her failure to show him the appropriate hospitality. <15> This is an example of the way in which Higgins and Maurice shared ideas and sources as Higgins, like Maurice, summarised the work of Bailli[e] on the invention of science in a region to the north of India and cited Hastings' information on Indian acceptance of a northern fountainhead of their culture to support an interpretation of Bailli[e]'s work, doing so in strikingly similar phraseology (Higgins 1829: 46-7 c.f. Maurice 1812: 14-15). It is possible, of course, that an explanation other than Higgins' reliance on Maurice could be offered. <16> Here Davies must have meant Manu, the mythical progenitor of humanity and famous lawgiver, especially since he went on to add that Menu, along with King Minos, might be linked with Noah 'whose decrees formed the basis of jurisprudence in the east and the west' (Davies 1804: 197). <17> In this instance, Davies was drawing on the Hindu concept of pitriloka, literally the world or heaven of the ancestors. <18> Dow labelled these four tribes as Brahmins, 'Kittri or Koytri' (kshatriya), 'Beise or Bise' (vaishya) and 'Sudder' (shudra) (Dow 1770: xxxii-xxxiii). These correspond with the four varnas ('colours' or classes) set forth in the Hindu scriptures. BIBLIOGRAPHY Barot, R.,1994, 'Hinduism and Hindus in Europe' in S. Gill, G. D'Costa & U. King (eds) Religion in Europe: Contemporary Perspectives, Kampen: Kok Pharos, pp.68-85. Basham, A.L., 1967, The Wonder That Was India, (Third Edition), London: Sidgwick & Jackson. Burrow, Reuben, n.d., 'A Proof that the Hindoos had the Binomial Theorem', Asiatic Researches vol. ii: 388-395; First published 1790. Burton, Robert, 1932, The Anatomy of Melancholy, London: Dent. Caesar, Julius, 1951, The Conquest of Gaul, S.A. Handford (tr.), Harmondsworth: Penguin. Chadwick, Nora, 1997,The Druids, (Second Edition), Cardiff: Cardiff University Press Clement, of Alexandria, 1867, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria, (trans.) William Wilson (Anti-Nicene Library: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 (ed.) Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson vol. IV Clement of Alexandria vol. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. Davies, Edward, 1804, Celtic Researches, London: Author. Dow, Alexander, 1770, The History of Hindostan vol. I (Second Edition), London: S. Beckert and P.A. de Hondt, (Reprint Edition 1973 New Delhi: Today and Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers). Drew, John, 1987, India and the Romantic Imagination, New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Higgins, Godfrey, 1829, The Celtic Druids, London: Rowland Hunter; Hurst & Chance; Ridgway and Sons, (Reprint Edition 1977 Los Angeles: The Philosophical Research Society). Jones, Prudence & Pennick, Nigel, 1995, A History of Pagan Europe, London: Routledge. Jones, William, n.d., 'On the Gods of Greece, Italy and India', Asiatic Researches vol. I :188-235, First published 1789. Klostermaier, Klaus, 1994, A Survey of Hinduism, (Second Edition), Albany; State University of New York Press. Laertius, Diogenes, 1853, The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, (trans.) C.D. Yonge, London: Henry G. Bohn. Marshall, P. J. (ed.), 1970, The British Discovery of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maurice, Thomas, 1812, Indian Antiquities vol. vi Containing Dissertations on the Origin of the Druids and the Commerce of Hindostan, London: Author Monier-Williams, Monier, 1899, Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Second Edition), Oxford: Oxford University Press.(Reprint Edition 1976 New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers). Muller, F. Max, 1883, India: What Can It Teach Us? London: Longmans, Green and Company Philostratus, Flavius, 1912, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (trans.), F.C. Conybeare, London: Heinemann. Piggott, Stuart, 1985a, The Druids, London: Thames and Hudson. Piggott, Stuart, 1985b, William Stukeley: An Eighteenth Century Antiquary, (Second Edition), London: Thames and Hudson. Piggott, Stuart, 1989, Ancient Britons and the Antiquarian Imagination: Ideas from the Renaissance to the Regency, London: Thames and Hudson. Said, Edward, 1995, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient (Second Edition), Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sharpe, E.J., 1975, Comparative Religion: A History, London: Duckworth York, Michael, 1995, The Divine versus the Asurian: An Interpretation of Indo-European Cult and Myth, Bethesda: International Scholars Publications. END