The Battle of the Trees

[Mlle Bienvenu]

Graves’ Argument of The Battle of the Trees and The Alphabetic Symbolism Behind It


For Graves’ book The White Goddess, his argument for the meaning behind the ancient Welsh poem ‘Câd Goddeu’ (‘The Battle of the Trees’ or arguably, ‘The Battle of Trees’ I have included both the original poem and Graves’ deciphering of the poem) tends to be covered by historical criticism.

The crux of Graves’ argument centers upon the historical period in which the poem was written down (the emerging poem, Graves says, is probably much older in memorized form) and history’s effect on the poem itself. He starts off with the argument that the ‘poem’ in question is actually more than one poem which has been scrambled together to conceal it meaning from the prying eyes of invaders. According to Graves, The Celts were under pressure to conform to Christianity, so it was common place to muddle the druidic literature of the time, so only those with the proper bardic knowledge could decipher it’s secrets. In the Celtic Pagan religion, (and indeed, many of it’s contemporaries all around the world) the written word was considered sacred and a gift from (the) God(s). Not only was the words considered sacred, but the alphabet itself was considered sacred.

I feel that Graves’ argument thus far is sound. After reading the poem itself, it does seem to fit in with what I know of Celtic liturature and the Roman invasion of Britain, and also what I know about the significance of ancient alphabets. Even today people use the Hebrew alphabet (and other ancient alphabets) to derive spiritual guidance from the letters of words (Like the whole ‘Bible Code’ thing). The Celts of the Bronze age were no different.

Even still, the alphabet itself was far more significant then than it is in today’s society. The BLN (The Beth-Luis-Nion or Birch-Rowan-Ash) not only served as a means to write down thoughts, but the letter names served as a thirteen month calendar corresponding with the consonants, which timed seasonal (probably sacred) activities connected with the blooming of the trees.

So Grave’s argument goes on to state that The Battle of the Trees is a poem hiding the sacred Celtic alphabet from prying eyes of their roman Christian invaders. He then explains that the Celtic letters get their names from the trees. (A list of which I have included. There is also a disputed BLF alphabet, but scholars are undecided about it’s authenticity, from the way Graves explained his argument for the BLN, it seemed that the BLN is probably more accurate; in order for the BLF (Beth-Luis-Fearn or Birch-Rowan-Alder) to work, the scholars had to go through several intermediate alphabets to arrive at it, whereas the BLN seemed to just click into place with found evidence. Also, the Beth-Luis-Nion followed the order of the blooming seasons of these trees far better than the Beth-Luis-Fearn.)

[Mlle Bienvenu]

So far, I like Graves’ argument; he backs up his claims with relevant data, gives the alternate theories and shows precisely why he doesn’t think they work. Also, I find his argument follows the requirements of the historical critique, and presents exhaustive evidence for his ideas ( far too exhaustive to list all of the ways here…but he does draw on multiple contemporary mythologies from around the world and draws in their migrations and mutations for the reader to follow)

Through his explanations, it is easy to see the double intent of the title of the poem, as the BLN was also often just called ‘the Trees’. Graves’ theory is that each relevant stanza stood for a letter, going by it’s associated trees’ characteristics. However, when he did this, he found that the characteristics didn’t match the tree name given. (This intermediate version of The Battle of Trees I have not included.) He then Hypothesized that the poem was not only scrambled with other poems, but also scrambled within itself, forming some sort of acrostic puzzle. He uses as evidence for this possibility the story of Gwion, which was a contemporary tale of The Battle of Trees which is well known to include a scrambled riddle-poem which the child Gwion gave to stump the elders. So it was not beyond comprehension that other bards would engage in the same activity.

So when he uses various relevant outside texts to decipher the stanzas of the Battle of the Trees. To which he finds that his assumption of an underlying hidden alphabet clicked into place, resulting in a straightforward account of the BLN alphabet. (I have included Graves’ ‘final deciphered version’ of Battle of the Trees.)

This is the part of his argument where I find his argument a little dubious. Although he provides ample evidence of his train of thought. I must ask if it isn’t possible that he may be stretching them slightly to fit his desired result. (I often found myself thinking the same thing when reading Freud’s Analysis of Dreams, which is included in part, in Rivkin and Ryan.) This is the most decidedly ‘artistic’ part in his thinking process where he seems to free associate his way through the poem and then backs up his thoughts with evidence from contemporary texts to The Battle of Trees.

When completed, the poem not only shows the alphabet itself, but also an account of the Roman invaders conquering the druidic religion. In the Druidic religion, if followers of another god got hold of the true name of one’s god, one’s god would symbolically loose power. (this superstition, Graves points out is still alive today incognito. For instance, the name of god is not allowed to be spoken or written because it is too holy).

So, according to Graves, the poem works on a myriad of levels. It functions as a scrambled historical record of the Beth-Luis-Nion, an account of the Roman takeover of Britain, and, in it’s reconstructed ‘original’ form, a teaching tool for druidic acolytes.

While interpreting The Battle of Trees, Graves tends to follow a very logical and easy to follow train of thought; He backs his argument with texts which would have been contemporaries of the Battle of Trees and also makes a case for it’s connection to the historical background on why it is mixed together with other poems. The only weak spot I can see is in his reordering of the phrases (a point where his colleagues may be able to disprove him with even better sources) Although well documented by him, I feel it may be slightly muddied as an act of interpretation on the author’s part. Other than that, I feel his historical argument for the Battle of the Trees holds water, and until someone comes up with a more plausible explanation to the meaning of it, I think his argument has a very solid basis in relevant information.

Will we ever find out the true intent of the druids who wrote the poem? The world may never know.

[Pignut]

admin said:

When completed, the poem not only shows the alphabet itself, but also an account of the Roman invaders conquering the druidic religion. In the Druidic religion, if followers of another god got hold of the true name of one’s god, one’s god would symbolically loose power. (this superstition, Graves points out is still alive today incognito. For instance, the name of god is not allowed to be spoken or written because it is too holy).

So, according to Graves, the poem works on a myriad of levels. It functions as a scrambled historical record of the Beth-Luis-Nion, an account of the Roman takeover of Britain, and, in it’s reconstructed ‘original?form, a teaching tool for druidic acolytes.

.

Where does he say that it concerns the Roman invasion? I was under the impression that it refers to an earlier or possibly later invasion.

[Mlle Bienvenu]

I'm afraid it's been a few years since I've read that book.... But I'll try and find out for you, provided I find my copy of The White Goddess XD