Last lesson we read the first part of the story. Let's quickly check what you remember!
1. Who had just finished telling a story?
2. Did all British chiefs want to fight Romans?
3. According to Catia, what did Druids do?
4. Where were Druids found?
Remember
We've heard two different views so far:
• Indus (Roman perspective): Druids incited people to war
• Catia (British perspective): Druids settled disputes peacefully
Story: Lines 12-17 (10 minutes)
⚠️ Content Warning
In this section, Gisco describes what Romans claimed Druids did in their ceremonies. This involves violence. Remember: this comes from Roman sources who wanted to make Druids look cruel. We don't know if it's true.
Gisco now tells Sabina what he's heard about Druid ceremonies...
'Druidēs quoque erant sacerdōtēs,' inquit Giscō. 'in silvīs sacrīs ingēns simulācrum vīmineum faciēbant, et in simulācrō captīvōs pellēbant.'
Key vocabulary:
quoque = also
sacerdōtēs = priests
silvīs sacrīs = in sacred woods
ingēns = huge
simulācrum = statue, image
vīmineum = made of wicker
captīvōs = prisoners, captives
pellēbant = were driving, were pushing
The Wicker Man Story
This story comes from Julius Caesar's account in his Gallic Wars (written around 50 BC). Caesar claimed Druids built huge wicker statues, filled them with prisoners, and burned them as sacrifices to the gods. But remember: Caesar was trying to justify invading Gaul and Britain!
'postquam simulācrum hominibus vīvīs plēnum erat, Druidēs simulācrum incendēbant,' inquit Indus. 'captīvī vehementer clāmābant, sed effugere nōn poterant.'
Key vocabulary:
postquam = after
hominibus vīvīs = with living people
plēnum = full
incendēbant = were setting fire to, were burning
vehementer = violently, loudly
clāmābant = were shouting
effugere = to escape
poterant = were able
💭 How many imperfect tense verbs can you spot in these two sections?
Six: erant (were), faciēbant (were making), pellēbant (were pushing), erat (was), incendēbant (were burning), clāmābant (were shouting), poterant (were able).
💭 Why do you think Gisco and Indus use the imperfect tense so much here?
The imperfect suggests this happened repeatedly or was an ongoing practice ("they used to do this"). It makes it sound like a regular Druid ceremony, not just a one-off event. This makes Druids seem more systematically cruel.
Story: Lines 18-23 (8 minutes)
Now we get to see how different characters react to this story...
'quid accidit?' rogāvit Rūfīna attonita.
Key vocabulary:
quid accidit? = what happened?
attonita = astonished, shocked
'mox omnēs captīvī in simulācrō vīmineō periērunt,' susurrāvit Giscō.
Key vocabulary:
mox = soon
omnēs = all
periērunt = died, perished (perfect)
susurrāvit = whispered (perfect)
💭 Why does Gisco whisper (susurrāvit) this part?
Whispering makes it seem more dramatic and scary - like it's too horrible to say out loud. It adds to the sense that this is shocking, disturbing information.
sed Catia, postquam marītum audīvit, clāmāvit, 'fābulae! Druidēs nōn erant crūdēlēs!' tum Giscō et uxor in popīnā contrōversiam habēbant.
Key vocabulary:
marītum = husband
audīvit = heard (perfect)
clāmāvit = shouted (perfect)
fābulae! = nonsense! lies!
crūdēlēs = cruel
uxor = wife
contrōversiam = argument, dispute
habēbant = were having (imperfect)
🔥 The Critical Moment
Catia, who is British, completely rejects what Gisco and Indus have said. She shouts "fābulae!" (nonsense/lies!) and insists that Druids weren't cruel. This creates a major argument in the bar!
💭 Why does Catia react so strongly?
Catia is British - these are her people, her culture. She's hearing Romans tell horrible stories about Druids (who were important religious and community leaders). She knows these stories are Roman propaganda designed to make Britons look barbaric. She's angry that her husband believes these lies.
'contrōversia est!' clāmāvit Indus. 'ubi sunt Druidēs?'
Key vocabulary:
contrōversia est! = there's a dispute!
ubi sunt...? = where are...?
💭 Why is Indus's joke funny (and also a bit dark)?
Remember that Catia earlier said Druids settled disputes. So Indus is joking "There's an argument - where are the Druids to settle it?" But it's also dark because he's just been saying horrible things about Druids, and now he's making light of it. It shows he doesn't take Catia's objections seriously.
Critical Thinking: Who Should We Believe? (7 minutes)
Now we've heard the full story, let's think critically about what we've been told.
🏛️ Roman Perspective (Gisco & Indus)
What they claim: • Druids incited young people to war
• They burned prisoners in wicker statues
• This was a regular practice
Why might they say this? • Justifies Roman invasion ("we're stopping barbarians")
• Makes Romans look civilised by comparison
• They've only heard Roman accounts
• They genuinely believe it's true
🛡️ British Perspective (Catia)
What she claims: • Druids settled disputes peacefully
• They weren't cruel
• Roman stories are lies (fābulae)
Why might she say this? • She's British - knows her own culture
• Druids were respected leaders in her society
• She's defending her people from slander
• She may have direct knowledge Romans lack
What Can We Actually Know?
Things we're fairly sure about: • Druids existed in Britain and Gaul
• They were religious leaders, judges, and teachers
• They opposed Roman invasion
• Romans feared and eventually banned them
Things we can't be certain about: • Whether the wicker man burnings actually happened
• How cruel or peaceful Druids really were
• Whether Roman accounts are accurate or propaganda
💭 Discussion: If you had to write a history of the Druids, whose perspective would you trust more - and why?
There's no single right answer! A good historian would:
• Acknowledge we only have Roman written sources
• Note that Romans had reasons to exaggerate
• Consider that Catia might know things Romans didn't
• Look at archaeological evidence (which doesn't support mass burnings)
• Admit we can't know for certain
The key is being critical of ALL sources and admitting what we don't know!
Language Consolidation: Perfect vs Imperfect (3 minutes)
Let's practise spotting the grammar we've been learning. In the text below, can you identify which verbs are perfect tense and which are imperfect tense?
Click on the verbs to identify them:
postquam Catia rem cōnfēcit, Sabīna dīxit, 'Luccus erat iuvenis stultus.' Giscō respondit. multī prīncipēs Britannicī pugnāre nōlēbant. Druidēs ad bellum iuvenēs Britannicōs incitābant. Indus Druidēs nōn vīdī. sed multī Druidēs aderant.
Quick Reminder
Perfect tense = completed action (often with -v- or special endings like -ī, -istī, -ērunt)
Examples: cōnfēcit (finished), dīxit (said), vīdī (I saw)
Imperfect tense = ongoing/repeated action in past (always has -ba-)
Examples: erat (was), nōlēbant (were unwilling), incitābant (were inciting)
💭 Challenge: Can you find a superlative adjective anywhere in the story?
"rem mīrābilem" (an amazing story) - though this isn't technically a superlative (which would be mīrābilissimam). There aren't any superlatives in this particular story! But can you create one? Try: crūdēlissimus (very/most cruel), ingentissimus (very huge).
Plenary: What Have We Learned? (2 minutes)
Today we've completed the story of the Druids and thought critically about different perspectives on ancient history.
📚 Key Learning Points
Language: • Practised identifying perfect and imperfect tenses
• Saw how verb tenses create meaning (imperfect for repeated actions)
• Built vocabulary about religion, violence, and disputes
Historical Thinking: • Learned to question our sources - who wrote this? why?
• Understood that Roman accounts might be biased
• Recognised the importance of different perspectives
• Admitted what we can and can't know for certain
What Romans Said
Druids were dangerous, cruel priests who burned people in wicker statues and incited rebellion against civilised Roman rule.
What Britons Said
Druids were respected leaders, teachers, and judges who settled disputes and preserved important cultural and religious knowledge.
🤔 The Big Question
The truth probably lies somewhere between these extremes. Good historians:
• Question their sources
• Look for bias and propaganda
• Consider multiple perspectives
• Admit when evidence is uncertain
This is a skill you'll use throughout your study of history - ancient and modern!
Homework suggestion: Research what archaeological evidence tells us about Druids. Does it support Roman accounts or British perspectives - or neither?