J.-L. Brunaux, Nos ancêtres les Gaulois (John F. Drinkwater)

• Text
• Metadata
• PDF

Francia-Recensio 2009/3 Mittelalter – Moyen Âge (500–1500)

Jean-Louis Brunaux, Nos ancêtres les Gaulois, Paris (Éditions du Seuil) 2008, 302 p. (L’univers historique), ISBN 978-2-02-094321-5, EUR 21,00.

rezensiert von/compte rendu rédigé par

John F. Drinkwater, Nottingham

In 16 chapters, arranged in five parts, Brunaux identifies, seeks the origins and assesses the truth of fifteen received ideas about pre-Conquest Gaul and its inhabitants. As far as the sources of these beliefs – for the most part erroneous, or at least heavily distorted – are concerned, Brunaux cites a relatively small number of stock culprits consisting of: Greco-Roman prejudices about »barbarians«; Renaissance and Enlightenment adulation of all things Roman, and rediscovery and exploitation of native Gauls and invading Franks (including pre-revolutionary aristocratic adoption of the latter as ancestors and post-revolutionary popular preference for the former); nineteenth century Romanticism and nationalism, especially after the disaster of 1870; the mid-twentieth century need to come to terms with the Occupation of 1940–1944; the »them and us« of contemporary race-relations; and even the »tree-hugging« tendencies of modern environmentalists and, egregiously, the gross misinformation conveyed by Goscinny and Uderzo’s »Astérix« series. With regard to truth: Part 1: La Gaule, le pays qui préfigure la France? 1.1: La Gaule est-elle la France? Yes, up to a point. Gaul did not have exactly the same borders as the »hexagone«, and was nobody’s »patrie«; but it had similar borders, and was a »pays en devenir«. 1.2: La Gaule était-elle couverte de profonds forêts? No. Extensive, but managed, deforestation was a feature of Gallic rural life from an early date. 1.3: La Gaule était-elle une nation? No. There was no »patrie gauloise« as the direct ancestor of »la patrie française«. When the »pays en devenir« was aborted by the Roman conquest, ethnic and political loyalty was still to the civitas, and subsequent events reinforced such regionalism. Part 2: Les Gaulois, un people frustre? 2.1: Des guerriers farouches et querelleurs? No. Gallic fighting-men were not brave but ill-disciplined savages, but participants in an ordered and developing »warrior society«, undone well before Caesar by encroaching Roman materialism. 2.2: De simples huttes sans confort? No. Archaeology has revealed that Gauls knew how to construct large and complex buildings of many types, albeit in timber, not masonry. 2.3: Un art gaulois? Yes. However, related to the absence of monumental architecture, this was on a small scale, on tools, vessels, ornaments, coins etc. Usually misunderstood, it needs careful analysis, especially, again, its early corruption by Greco-Roman individualism. Part 3: La religion gauloise. 3.1: Des sacrifices humains? Yes. However, these were limited and within specific (judicial, martial) contexts. 3.2: Les druides, des prêtres-magiciens? Certainly not. Here, at the heart of his book, B. expounds his principal historical contention, referred to throughout, that the druids were not priests or wizards, but an ancient movement of hugely knowledgeable philosophers, who gave Gallic society overall its shape and direction and, indeed, everything that was positive in its culture (including its art). 3.3: »Avant que le ciel nous tombe sur la tête«. Yes, the concept existed, though expressed like this, as a childish fear, it is a travesty of druidic cosmological thinking. 3.4: Les bardes, de simples troubadours? No. Bards were the priests of Gallic society, powerful implementers of the general principles of druidic teaching through their manipulation of leading warriors. Part 4: Les relations avec Rome. 4.1: Une résistance farouche à la conquête? No. There was no considered or continuous resistance to the Caesarean conquest, itself fortuitous. Most Gauls, indeed, welcomed this acceleration of ongoing Romanisation. Such opposition as there was was patchy, and no more than a delayed reaction to a fait accompli. 4.2: La romanisation, une collaboration? No. As there was no active political resistance, so there was no passive cultural resistance. »Gallo-Roman« is a misnomer: Gallic culture under Rome was straightforwardly »provincial Roman«, not some hybrid. 4.3: Les Gaulois ont-ils tous appris des Romains? No. Gallic society was highly developed long before Rome, and had developed its own considerable skills. However, what Rome did introduce into Gaul – above all, proper urbanisation – was highly significant. Part 5: Que reste-t-il des Gaulois? 5.1: Les Gaulois, nos ancêtres? No, and yes. French beliefs concerning national origins have shifted over the centuries, only recently and incompletely coming to centre on the Gauls. Such beliefs always derive from the political and social demands of the moment. The French of today choose to see themselves as the descendants, but not, as in the past, the heirs and successors of the Gauls. 5.2: L’héritage des Gaulois? Yes. There is a Gallic legacy, though very elusive: in the appearance of the French countryside, in the French language and even in the cheeky national emblem of the cock – gallus.

Brunaux’s book is a good read. He writes plainly, but also passionately and entertainingly. He offers much of interest, for example concerning the medieval and modern »reception« of Franks, Gauls and Celts, including the legacy of Martin’s »Histoire de France« (1837-1854), and the inspiration for Bellini’s »Norma«. His passion for particular historical reconstructions can lead to questionable hypotheses. Certainly, Brunaux’s views on the nature and role of the druids, and on the extant fragments of Posidonius as providing the key to the decoding of all the secrets of Iron Age Gaul, are highly debateable. With regard to detail, he seems to confuse »Homeric« and »hoplite« societies. However, unusually, this sort of accuracy is not the main issue here. B. is not writing for an international, academic readership, as is reflected in his eschewing of references and footnotes, in his summary bibliography, and in the high degree of repetition of his material. Rather, he directly addresses the contemporary French public, with such passion that at times one feels that one is intruding upon a domestic quarrel. His basic concern seems to be the nature of French identity in today’s Europe. On the one hand he is irritated by current European political correctness, blaming it for elevating (non-historical, but international) Celts over (historical, but national) Gauls, and so obscuring true Gallic history. On the other, however, he seems broadly in favour of modern trends, and is certainly opposed to the revival of the association of culture and race. Rather, as he adumbrates in 5.1 and develops in his final chapter, 5.3: Les Gaulois et nous, une identification toujours en question, the Gauls are »us«, the French, but very very distantly and very very differently. Our »Gallic« identity should be understood as a modern construct, just one of many possible alternative identities some of which we adopted in our past. Today we no longer need it, but, attracted perhaps by what we see as Gallic animalism, we find ourselves unable to abandon it, clinging to it in a poorly understood and massively distorted form – hence the clichés dealt with here. To shed it we must consciously disavow it. Then, by studying the Gauls afresh, we may really understand them. This allows B. his third passion. In his view, such understanding is impossible because the French academic and educational establishment has, for a long time, abandoned scientific study of the Gauls. Thus we are left with the idiocies of Astérix, and even more, those of Obélix, the maker and distributor of Bronze Age menhirs in Iron Age Gaul!