I love learning. I love good sources of information, and I consider academic work to be invaluable. I just wanted to say that at the start, so as to leave no doubt. If only it were that simple, though.

As Pagans, many of us are trying to recreate, revive or reconstruct elements of ancient practices or ideas. We take an interest in history, mythology, folklore, archaeology and anthropology in ways the general public rarely does. These things inform and inspire each one of us a little differently, and I believe that's as it should be. I want my fellow Pagans to have access to the best quality information about whatever they need to know. I like to share things that will help them get there, including directing them toward the things that helped me.

So why do I think there is trouble? Perhaps a list is the easiest way to cover this.

The trouble with terrible information: There is no doubt that many Pagan and "esoteric" books have been published which are full of bad information. This also goes for blogs, documentaries, and things being taught in workshops. To call the bad stuff scholarship, though, is probably stretching a point, and there are also great documentaries, blogs and workshops. Bad information is nothing new. The Greeks, Romans and medieval Europeans have plenty of BS to offer us. Old isn't always better. Well informed Pagans see the bad stuff for what it is, and like to warn newcomers, which is fine, but it often leads to ...

The trouble with posturing: This is popular on the internet. People with a little knowledge like to lord it over people with a little less, and people with even more knowledge sometimes behave very badly, indeed. A lot of name-calling ensues, but even when it doesn't come to that, we find people speaking in absolute terms about things which any true academic would agree have not been proven. A little knowledge probably isn't that dangerous, but an overabundance can sometimes be the worst weapon, as in...

However, removing the bad manners and bad information only fixes part of the problem ...

The trouble with academia, itself: Academic jobs that provide a decent living are getting harder and harder to come by, especially in the US. This can make career academics wary of questioning the established consensus, or pursuing novel lines of research. It's safer to gently push the edges of whatever is currently accepted, or just keep digging in the middle. This means that little progress gets made in some of the most interesting areas.

There are also issues with "tainted" areas of inquiry. Some of the most brilliant theories and discoveries are made by individuals whose work is patchy. Innovators and lateral thinkers often go down a few wrong roads before they find their answers. They may get overenthusiastic and publish their findings before they have checked all their conclusions, or simply carry their theories too far. They may even fudge things a little, because they are so sure of something that they might as well create an extra margin of proof so people will listen.

Sadly, the posturers of this world rarely consider this. They may have an impressive level of amateur scholarship, but because they love to position themselves as having superior knowledge, they are easily drawn into discrediting things that are academically unfashionable. Granted, there are plenty of dodgy ideas around, and if someone tells me "Oh, nobody listens to her theories, anymore" or "Current research suggests that never happened" I try to follow that up with a bit of research. For example, are various people all quoting one writer's attack on something? Does that attack seem warranted?

One final problem is fame. Academics who get contracts to make documentaries, or who write popular books that actually sell, sometimes come in for a special kind of backstabbing. It's occasionally deserved, and there's no doubt that personal image is as strong a selling point as brains, especially for television, but sometimes, people are just jealous.

The trouble with over-emphasis: Neo-Paganism is a set of spiritual or religious ideas. We may seek the best information about the past as a way of finding our way forward, but it can only take us so far. We all have different ideas about the woo-woo part. "Whatever I feel like" works for some, while others will insist on shared or "verified" gnosis. It's a personal choice. There is an awful lot about deity and spirituality that we can never be sure about, and everyone has a right to choose their own level of filtration. Ultimately, keeping religion/spirituality on a purely academic level cuts its heart out, especially when it comes to ...

The trouble with proof: This one is especially problematic in Celtic studies, because the Celts didn't write about their own culture until comparatively recently. There is a well-known maxim: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, if you can't prove that something happened, then maybe it didn't, but without evidence, you also can't be sure that it didn't happen. We have to accept that we can't look into the distant past with accuracy. As much as we'd like to know all about our ancestors' beliefs and customs, we never will. So sometimes we have to trust our hearts, or go with our best guess, or try to channel it, because the only alternative is ...

The trouble with overthinking: I consider myself to be intuitive. Plenty of people are. Most definitions of intuition focus on the ability to reach conclusions without consciously thinking about the knowledge you are drawing on. That's not the same thing as clairvoyance or seeing a holy vision or any of the woo-woo stuff. It's just the mind's ability to connect up ideas without us telling it how. I don't believe that intuition should always be trusted, but I do know that it is only as good as what you feed it. I've never studied calculus, so I'm unlikely to ever have an intuitive breakthrough there. I'm going to have my best intuitive thoughts where my knowledge already runs deepest, and if that knowledge is faulty, my intuition might be, too. That's why I like my little scholarly pursuits, because they feed me. They feed me best if choose my intake wisely, and consume in moderation.

Every time I read this passage I mourn.

However, let's finish the tale:
Naturally, at this point in the story Matholwch is offended and angry, but Bran manages to patch things up with gifts and apologies. However, as the story unfolds we find that the repercussions from Efnisien's actions have barely begun.

Back in Ireland, Branwen bears a son, called Gwern, but resentment against the Welsh over the mutilation of the horses resurfaces, and in retaliation Matholwch forces Branwen to live as a mistreated kitchen slave. When she manages to send to Wales for help, Bran raises a huge army and invades Ireland.

Seeing himself greatly outnumbered, Matholwch swears to give Gwern sovereignty over Ireland in order to make peace. Bran says this isn't enough, so the Irish offer to build a giant feasting hall, large enough to accommodate him. This is accepted, but turns out to be a trap. The Irish warriors are lying in wait, hiding in supposed flour sacks. Efnisien systematically crushes their skulls with his bare hands, unknown to Matholwch.

At the feast, Efnisien throws Branwen's child, Gwern, into the fire, killing him. More fighting ensues, with great losses on both sides. Efnisien dies by breaking a magical cauldron, Branwen dies of a broken heart, and Bran is mortally wounded by a poisoned spear. In the end, only seven of Bran's army return alive, including Manawydan, Taliesin, and Pryderi - the son of Rhiannon.

This is a very brief synopsis, but I have tried to mention everything, and add nothing. Whether one looks at my short re-telling, or the story as it stands in the second branch, every event, every nuance is open to many interpretations. That is the nature of myth, and I can only tell you what I am thinking at the moment.

Horses, the land. queens and sovereignty are closely bound together in the Mabinogi, and to some extent in Irish texts, too. Exactly how this thinking evolved through time is impossible to say. I suspect that it runs all the way back to a time when humans developed some kind of spiritual or magical relationship with horses as prey. This evolved as horses were gradually domesticated first for meat, and then were both ennobled and enslaved for warfare and heavy work.

Humans are adaptable and innovative, but paradoxically their societies are remarkably resistant to change. If the wild, swift and free horses who were hunted for food were venerated in some meaningful way, how did people feel about taking that freedom away? What stories did they create to make this acceptable, and who within these societies was driving these changes? Was the mare already a kind of earth mother deity? Did the changing status of the domesticated mare mirror, or alter the balance of power between male and female in human society?

I can't help feeling that Celtic stories carry some coded message for us. A distant echo, if you like, of how humans came to terms with or even excused, their changing relationship to nature. Did we change an association between the horse and the earth mother into an association between the horse and our new ideas about owning them, and holding territory for them to graze on?

These gradual adaptations must have brought spiritual or religious adjustments with them. Perhaps during times of change there was a sense that humans might be transgressing natural/sacred laws, or at least that they must be careful to continue to show respect for what had been sacred under the old system. The need to conflate the sacred earth and the sacred feminine (equine and human) and with the holding of territory would have been a philosophical balancing act. One which introduced the need for a more concrete idea of sovereignty.

So how is this echoed in the Mabinogi? In the first branch we have the well-known story of Rhiannon, who is more insulted than abused. Pwyll, although rather inept, makes some attempt to show respect for her, and things are resolved to bring about a happy ending to the story.  

When we come to the second branch things shift. While there is a similar tale of the mistreatment of a woman who should be an honoured bringer of sovereignty, she is no longer directly associated with horses. The suffering of these divine queens following their marriages is bad enough, but pales in comparison to Efnisien's mutilation of the horses and the catastrophic events that follow. In the first branch, the insults to the sovereignty bringer, Rhiannon,  are the result of Pwyll's foolishness, and while painful for her, impact only her. Efnisien's actions, however, are cruel and show a deep disregard for the sovereign earth mother in the form of Matholwch's horses. It is no wonder that the destruction which follows is also on a different scale.

Although the narration of the Mabinogi concentrates on the insult to Matholwch, and the rendering useless of his horses, this emphasis probably has its roots in  legal preoccupations and  Christian theology. However, the visceral and highly specific description of Efnisien's crime carries a deep sense of wrongdoing against nature and beauty. Perhaps this hearkens back to an atavistic taboo from our earliest beliefs. The pain and terror inflicted on these horses is an immediate shock to anyone who hears the story. Perhaps we should look into this wound, rather than turning away to focus on the romantic tragedy of Branwen.

It's as if the second branch is saying to us, "Listen. I don't think you fully comprehend the importance of the lesson of the first branch. Let me show you again, more vividly. Let me remind you that there are limits." Efnisien has overstepped the limits of both intention and severity. In the first branch, Rhiannon upbraids Pwyll for unfairly spurring his horse, a crime that shrinks in comparison to Efnisien's bloody rampage.

It is no wonder that none of the characters in this story are able to fix things. Neither sweet Branwen with her tame starling, nor two kings alternating between war and placation, nor Efnision's last minute attempts at heroism can alter the outcome. Men, horses, kings, heirs and kingdoms, the precious cauldron of rebirth and the divine queen herself are lost. At this time in history when those in power seem to have lost all sense of the sacredness of nature, but are leading us to destruction while they squabble over riches and insults, this is a story we need to revisit.