A Silver Apple for Teacher

by Robin Herne

In early Gaelic society the role of the ceann-fine, the head of the household, was to look after and represent their tribe. Many may well have become tyrannical and misused their authority, but it seems to me that the underlying idea was one of care and protection. With approaching adulthood many youths may have looked towards apprenticeships to learn a craft or profession. Most probably just took up the family trade, but there would have been those who looked to masters outside their immediate blood-kin to teach them a new skill. Though a caste society, the early Gaels seem to have had a reasonable degree of flexibility to allow people to pursue their talents, rather than force them to follow a family trade for which they had little aptitude.

The surviving Brehon law books describe apprentices ~ be they learning blacksmithing, carpentry, druidry or whatever ~ as becoming part of the household of their teachers. In Christian times an abbot stood as ceann-fine to all the monks or nuns in his care (early monasteries being cohabiting, prior to the enforcement of celibacy.) The master or teacher then had the responsibility to feed, clothe, shelter and generally nurture the student for the duration of their training. They also became answerable for their actions in law, were required to authorise such business deals or marriage contracts as the pupil might wish to make. The student became, in effect, a member of the family.

When the student graduated or completed their apprenticeship, they left the teacher’s household. The law required that such alumni be willing to financially support their old teachers, should they become too ill or frail to support themselves. Thus the graduates became part of a sort of pension plan for the educator.

In the modern day few people could afford to feed, clothe etc one student, let alone an entire class of them. However, teachers (at least perhaps those operating from a Druid world view) can still be seen as having the moral responsibility for their pupils. Indeed, the Gaelic word for student, dalta, also means foster-child. I am not just thinking in terms of school-teachers and kiddies, but also anyone who agrees to teach an adult some skill or knowledge, especially religious knowledge.

It's no longer viable for the head of a Druid Clan or Grove to have right of censure over members marriage plans or mortgages. However, there is a responsibility for the nature of what is taught. It should be accurate, to the best of everyone’s awareness, but also it should be delivered in a responsible and caring way. Inadequate teachers rely on fear and humiliation to get their points across. Students, even (perhaps especially) those who are not very bright, should not leave a class feeling stupid or useless. The old apprentice-master relationship was a formal one, a contract. There were rights and responsibilities in law on both sides.

The deliberate transmission of knowledge in any context can be classed as an attempt to take on the teaching role. Particularly if it is in relation to skills, philosophies etc rather than just idle gossip. Giving a talk on Celtic Mythology at a moot is to assume the guise of teacher, even if only for an hour. During that time the audience, even the ones who may actually know far more than the speaker, are placing themselves in the position of pupil or apprentice. A two-way responsibility exists for the length of the class. The students are responsible for behaving in a respectful and attentive manner, and the teacher for the quality of information and its style of delivery.

Conversations can enter a murky area, especially when they become more a case of conversion. So often one sees evangelists (of whichever ilk) having "discussions" with strangers, even friends, that usually descend into them hectoring the other for holding incorrect beliefs. The preacher may assume the other is a know-nothing who needs setting right. In other words, one starts to act as a teacher and tries to put the other in the place of pupil, regardless of wether they want to be treated so or not. There is no formal agreement in such a relationship. The one being hectored may not want to have their ideas challenged, or they may even feel that they are in the right and that it is the other person who needs teaching.

In short, it feels wrong to me to try and pull the rug from under someone else's beliefs, without their consent to hear an alternative. People's beliefs may frequently be illogical, or founded upon misapprehensions. However, unless they specifically ask to be taught about an alternate way of viewing the world ~ has an outsider the right just to start tearing their ideologies apart? If it is done in a humiliating, belittling fashion then the recipient of the barrage may feel little gratitude for the wisdom and insights provided.

The Brehon emphasis on formalising just about every relationship as a legal contract may seem excessive at times, but was largely geared to making sure everyone knew just what was required of them, and what they could expect of the other person.
If someone willingly enters your tutelage, they also (from an old Druid perspective) enter your care, become your responsibility. The sorts of “persuasion” just mentioned seldom exhibit any sense of care or nurture, but often just smack of evangelism or one-upmanship.

I am thinking of this largely from my own religious perspective, yet I am conscious that in other traditions teaching may not be viewed in the same context. Philosophical discussions over a pint may also not be viewed as a form of teaching in the first place, and therefore not subject to the same concerns.