The Price of Peace by Stinson Jarvis (1921) is a fascinating book on the history of religion, with zero citations (ie nary a reference to it in printed literature). It traces the history of religion using a linguistic analysis. As such, I can’t comprehend why no analysis of his linguistic analysis exists other than that it is completely bogus. Can anyone with a linguistic bend burn through this thing and let us know what you think?
He even says: “I request that no statement in this book shall be accepted until after it has been verified by the reader.”
He basically claims that these Druids going back circa 10k years understood they we were evolved from apes and systematically deceived people by inventing world religions. It’s actually rather fascinating, even if made up. With no citations, I can’t assign a prior probability to it personally, but I bet you guys can.
Start with the preface:
He goes on to say that Homer, the Bible, Plato, etc…, all contain hidden references that you can trace back to the teaching of these Druids and which learned folk (us) were supposed to be able to decode. And he calls out Darwin as a spy, indicating these Druids still walk among us, that is, if they aren’t plugged into some matrix in a hole somewhere secretly controlling world economies.
Seriously though, even if fictional, this book is really impressive. And this is not a book review: He specifically asks for someone to articulately call BS on him.
Someone actually wrote a Master’s thesis about this guy in 1968. You can check it out yourself - frankly it wasn’t holding my attention very well on a quick skim. But of course all of this stuff is bogus. He basically pulled it out of his ass. Though it is entirely possible, likely even, that he believed his own nonsense. The kindest interpretation the above study can conclude was that maybe he meant all this Druid blather metaphorically. But I suspect that is wayyyyy too kind. Sounds like the dude was just a loon.
I mean, really - there is a reason that the Druid 13,000 year control of the world and invention of religion isn’t taught in 8th grade history. And it isn’t because those clever Welsh druids are still suppressing the work of the one brilliant soul who was able to figure this all out in 1921.
Right there I don’t need to know anything else except this claim and the fact that Stinson Jarvis was an English Canadian writing in 1921.
The idea that pre-Roman Britain could have any sort of wide reaching influence over the whole world is in complete defiance of logic and common sense; it is the sort of absurd claim only an Englishman, or as close as Jarvis was to that, could have made in an era when England was still very important and if you were not so smart you might make the error of thinking it had always been important. Britain in 1000BC was a backwater that most people in the REAL civilizations of the world knew and cared nothing about.
11,000 B.C. RickJay - that’s when the Druids established their first colleges according to Jarvis. Got to give those Druids their due - they were aparently way ahead of the curve on that whole civilization thing :p.
The thing about the Druids is that we really only know about them from the Romans, in particular Julius Caesar’s self-congratulatory propaganda. Anything anyone says about the Druids is probably wrong. It’s like our knowledge of the Spartans. There aren’t a lot of famous Spartan writings that have come down to us, but their main rival Athens sure did write a lot of not-so-flattering things about how barbaric and uncultured they were.
How does he know what the Druids taught in 11,000 BC? The earliest example of writing that I am aware of is in Mesopotamia around 3200 BC.
What language is he speaking of?
Genesis was written in Hebrew, not any Celtic language. One of the ways the different parts of Genesis are determined are the different names for God. One is Yahweh, and another is Elohim. Neither of them makes any reference to the sun or a garden.
I think you have answered your own question there.
Because linguists and historians have better things to do than knock down every piece of idiotic drivel some nationalist whines out about how their favored group is so the most important group to ever exist in the history of the world and everyone must bow down to their brilliant proof of this fact.
Put another way, it’s easier to invent insane nonsense than it is to thoroughly debunk it. It’s also more fun, because insane nonsense usually fits into a few categories, with Nationalist Ranting being the most common or close to it, and debunking your fiftieth iteration of the same damn thing isn’t nearly so amusing as sharpening your claws on your first. Plus, there isn’t any school which considers such debunkings to be real work; anyone who does it, does it in their spare time, separate from teaching courses, grading papers, and publishing real utterances in their field.
The flip side of most nonsense being pretty cookie-cutter is that it gets to be easy to recognize it, and debunk it yourself. You soon come to be inoculated against it, and don’t get nearly as excited when you stumble upon some Forgotten Book Of Great Import which looks and reads just like the last ten Forgotten Books Of Great Import you discovered and later found to be complete nonsense.