Recommended Books on the Irish Myths?

[ShropshirePagan]

What would you reckon would be essential reading for anyone intersted in Irish mythology, especially if they were new to it?

I'm currently trying to get some decent books myself at the moment but I just don't know where to start!

Blessings

Elaine x

[Donegal]

I"ve got a brilliant book a friend lent me, it's called "Irish folk and fairy tales omnibus" and is by Michael Scott.  In there, you have Irish myths and stories from the oral traditions and fairy tales.  It's in three volumes but you could get it all in one volume (like the book my friend lent me, it's in one volume).  The edition I have got it in is Warner Books.  Scott says in his introduction that he has changed some details about the myths, but not the core of the stories itself, and that he is hoping he has really told the stories "In the tradition".  Although I am by no means a specialist of Irish mythology, this book seems to me to really be "in the tradition".  His versions of the myths are convincing and truly inspiring.  I am ready the book myself as I am researching the History of the mythical Tuatha de Danaan for a project with a friend.  I would recommend this book, as a reference book that you can choose to read in full.  But you may prefer to just read some stories: the entire book must be around four hundred, maybe five hundred pages long! But the stories themselves are short and beautiful! Good luck with your reading.  Donegal.  

[madpoet]

Elaine,

I use this site a lot: http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/index.htm#ireland  Actually so much so I bought their CD.  You'll find a lot of good public domain resources here - I especially like the Lady Augusta Gregory translations.

[Beith]

Hi _ Highly recommend

Lady August Gregory's "Complete Irish Mythology" as it contains 3 of the major cycles "Gods & Fighting Men" (the Túatha Dé Danann stories), The Fenian Cycle (tales of Fionn mac Cumhaill and the Fianna warrior band) and the Ulster cycle (CúChulainn, Red branch knights of ulster, etc)

but have to "warn you" that it's written very much in old hiberno-english vernacular (ie. the english spoken in Ireland by the peasants of west Ireland...pretty much with the rhythms of speech that one finds in gaelic..and here in translation from. Its not everyone's taste)

Marie Heaney's "Over nine waves" - has a very nice simple narrative style and contains stories from teh above 3 cycles

Charles Squire and P Joyce are two other authors to look out for.

There are probably millions of books on mythology and folklore so it;s a question of deciding what you like! Those aforementioned are good starters as they give a good but quite wide- overview of some of the more famous tales and sagas.

Enjoy!
Beith

[ShropshirePagan]

Thanks!  This little list looks like exactly the sort of starting point that I needed.

Blessings

Elaine x

[MacMorrighan]

What would you reckon would be essential reading for anyone intersted in Irish mythology, especially if they were new to it?

I'm currently trying to get some decent books myself at the moment but I just don't know where to start!

Blessings

Elaine x

Hiya'!  I, personally, would recommend the following books:

• Carey, John, and John T. Koch [2003].  The Celtic Heroic Age: Literary Sources for Ancient Celtic Europe & Early Ireland & Wales [Fourth Edition, Revised and Expanded].  Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies.  Celtic Studies Publications: Aberystwyth, Wales.
• Clark, Rosalind [1991].  The Great Queens: Irish Goddesses from the Morrígan to Cathleen ní Houlihan.  Irish Literary Studies, 34.  Barnes & Noble Books: Savage, MD.
• Collis, John [2003].  The Celts: Origins, Myths & Inventions.
• Cunliffe, Barry [1997].  The Ancient Celts.  Penguin Books, Ltd.: London, England.
• Dexter, Miriam Robbins, Ph.D. [1990].  Whence the Goddess: A Source Book.  Teachers College Press: New York, NY.
• Green, Miranda [1986].  The Gods of the Celts.  Sutton Publishing, Ltd.: Gloucestershire, UK.
• Green, Miranda [1992].  Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legend.  Thames and Hudson, Ltd.: London, England.
• Green, Miranda [1996].  “The Celtic Goddess as Healer,” in Sandra Billington and Miranda Green [ed.], The Concept of the Goddess.  Routledge: London and New York.
• Green, Miranda [1997a].  Celtic Goddesses: Warriors, Virgins & Mothers.  British Museum Press: London, England.
• Green, Miranda [1997].  The World of the Druids.  Thames and Hudson, Ltd.: London, England.
• Gulermovich-Epstein, Angelique [1998].  War Goddess: The Morrígan and her Germano-Celtic Counterparts.  Diss. University of California: Los Angeles, CA.
• Hennesy, W. M. [1870-72].  “The Ancient Irish Goddess of War” in Revue Celtique I: 32-57.
• Herbert, Máire [1996].  ‘Transmutations of an Irish Goddess’ in Sandra Billington and Miranda Green [ed.], The Concept of the Goddess.  Routledge: London and New York.
• James, Simon [1999].  The Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention?  The University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, WI.
• Mac Cana, Proinsias [1983].  Celtic Mythology
• Matthews, John & Caitlin [2004].  The Encyclopaedia of Celtic Myth and Legend: A Definitive Sourcebook of Magic, Vision, and Lore.  The Lyons Press: Guilford, CT.
• Lysaght, Patricia [1996].  ‘Aspects of the Earth-Goddess in the Traditions of the Banshee in Ireland’ in Sandra Billington and Miranda Green [ed.], The Concept of the Goddess.  Routledge: London and New York.
• Maier, Bernhard [2003].  The Celts: A history from earliuest times to the present.  The University of Notre Dame Press.
• MacQuarrie, Charles W. [2000].  ‘Insular Celtic Tattooing: History, Myth and Metaphor’ in Jane Caplan [ed.] Written on the Body: The Tattoo in European and American History.  Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
• Mackillop, James [1998].  Oxford Dictionary of Celtic Mythology.  Oxford University Press: Oxford, England.
• Moffat, Alistair [2005].  Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History.  Thames & Hudson, Ltd.: New York, NY.
• O hOgaine, Daithi [2006].  The Lore of Ireland: An Encyclopaedia of Myth, Legend & Romance.  Boydell Press.
• Patterson, Nerys [1994].  Cattle Lords & Clansmen: The Social Structure of Early Ireland.  [Second Edition]  University of Notre Dame Press.
• Robinson, Philip [1994].  “Harvest, Halloween, and Hogmanay: Acculturation in Some Calendar Customs of the Ulster Scots” in Jack Santino [ed.], Halloween and Other Festivals of Death and Life.  The University of Tennessee Press: Knoxville, TN.
• Ross, Anne [1973].  ‘The Divine Hag of the Pagan Celts’ in Venetia Newall [ed.], The Witch Figure.  Routledge & Kegan Paul: London and Boston.
• Ross, Anne [1996].  Pagan Celtic Britain: Studies in Iconography and Tradition.  Academy Chicago Publishers: Chicago, IL.
• Ross, Anne [2004].  Druids: Preachers of Immortality.  Tempus Publishing Ltd.: Gloucestershire, UK.
• Sjoestedt, Marie-Louise [tr. Myles Dillon, 2000].  Celtic Gods and Heroes.  Dover Publications, Inc.: Mineola, NY.  [orig. pub.: Dieux et heros des Celtes, 1949.  Methuen & Co. Ltd, London]

I would, however, caution you to tread cautiously with the work of Ronald Hutton.  Often he puts his opinion forht as empirical fact; makes rather large leaps with blanket statements; and has been seen to dismiss scholars (such as one brilliant Hungarian scholar, Eva Pocs) as being inconsequential if they differ from his opinion, without explaining why.  What's just as bad, IMHO, is when Pagans remain unaware that ghe has to follow a specific school of thought to the letter, which is known as reductionism or minimalism, and can be a bias in itself.  If only Pagans knew this it'd it'd put academia and scholarship into a far more balanced perspective.  British scholars are often at odds with scholars-- as a whole-- from continental Europe, particularly Eastern Europe.

Take care,
Wade MacMorrighan

[Megli]

Yes, that's true - I often see large differences in style between British and Irish scholars working on the Celts and those from Continental Europe (where, incidentally, 'Celtic Studies' refers to the ancient celts and their archaeology etc, whereas in Britain it very largely means the discussion of the medieval insular Celts.) One difference is that it's still fashionable in Europe to go for Big Arguments (and why not?) whereas British and Irish scholars are more wary, perhaps, which might come across as reductive. Personally I like big arguments and can see the value of both approaches.

Can you describe Pocs' work to us or give me the ref. in Hutton? I'd be interested to have a look.

Many thanks
M/|\

[MacMorrighan]

Yes, that's true - I often see large differences in style between British and Irish scholars working on the Celts and those from Continental Europe (where, incidentally, 'Celtic Studies' refers to the ancient celts and their archaeology etc, whereas in Britain it very largely means the discussion of the medieval insular Celts.) One difference is that it's still fashionable in Europe to go for Big Arguments (and why not?) whereas British and Irish scholars are more wary, perhaps, which might come across as reductive. Personally I like big arguments and can see the value of both approaches.

Can you describe Pocs' work to us or give me the ref. in Hutton? I'd be interested to have a look.

Many thanks
M/|\

RE: Pocs and Hutton: She vies-- as most scholars now do, apparently [eg, Emme/Emma Wilby, Claude Lecoutex, etc.]-- for the shamanic antecedants in medieval witchcraft belief.  However, Hutton's dismissal of her was not actually in one of his books, but in an "open" dialogue in the British journal, The Cauldron.

Also, as far as the vast methodological differences between British and European scholars, I am noit merely referring to "Celtic Studies" but a larger stratum, inclusive, also, of medieval witchcraft belief, and paleo-paganism, etc.  Even German scholars-- particularly Anthropologists-- differ vastly with British academia where medieval witchcraft belief and paleo-paganism is concerned.  Yet, as far as British academia is concerned-- and apparently Hutton, as well!-- these other geo-scholastic views are completely inconsequential and should be looked upon as "worthless"!

Minimalism-- or reductionism-- is British academia's "fatal flaw".  It pressumes that we cannot, and will not, know what the paleo-pagan religions were like, so they default to a purely modern of Christian explaination, for example.  Hence, by adopting a reductionist/minimalist school of thought (especally when one hides this very biased approach from their audience!), he is allowed (and almost demanded) to reject whole swaths of evidence of highly reasonable and-- even moreso probable-- contrary conclusions!

I wrote a friend the following about the issue in a private e-mail that sums it up rather nicely: "Try as I might, I simply have a hard time understanding where Ronald Hutton is coming from. (And that's being polite!) I find that the more I learn about any given subject with which Hutton's books have concerned themselves I am less able to accept him uncritically as a reliable source (especially as an objective one!).  But, moreover, it's often his hypocrisy that's the real bee in my britches, as though the same rules he applies to everyone else simply don't apply to himself! The best example I can think of, that illustrates this beautifully, is from The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles regarding his discussion of Odinn and the infamous Rune Poem. He claims that it is certainly Christian basing his conclusions on none other than the similarities between this text and the crucifixion. However, I know full well that Hutton would have torn to shred any other scholar with whom he disagrees if they had based their conclusion on merely the similarities, rather than the dissimilarities. His books, time and time again, fail to "balance the equation", if you will. They usually come off as though there are no respectable scholars that disagree with his opinions on the matter. In fact, what has surprised me the most is that I have come across no academic reviews of his books that have devulged any of his texts' errors-- because there are many errors! So, I have to sincerely wonder at the lack of any peer critique of his texts. Indeed, I have observed Hutton all-too-casually dismiss some highly respectable scholars that advance conclusions that differ from his "minimalist" school of thought: he did this with Hungarian Prof. Eva Pocs in an issue of The Cauldron, a few years back, and offered up not one single reason for his dismissal. Personally, that immediately sent up red flags for me! Eva Pocs is known to advance, as other scholars are from continental Europe, that the beliefs in medieval witchcraft have a certain shamanic and folkloric antecedent! Indeed, British scholars seem to have only grudgingly accepted this within the last 3 years or so, it seems. But, this is a grave concern of mine with regard to Hutton's material-- he has created a whole generation of followers amongst Pagans that believe they will not be taken seriously is they do not, themselves, adopt Hutton's reductionist school of thought. And, more so, any modern academic thought that is cited in stark contrast with Hutton's is thoughtlessly dismissed by we Pagans as simply being "out of date"!  And, that's really tragic! I, for one, would like to see Hutton pen an Introductory chapter when he finally re-writes The Pagan Religions (as he wants to) that puts all of this in perspective, and admits that there are many respectible scholars that should be taken just as seriously as he, though they will not always agree with Hutton's view. Why Hutton simply has not done this is anyone's guess, I suppose. But, still...one wonders why. Though, I must admit that I find it highly insulting when Pagans call me a "history revisionist" merely for disagreeing with some of Hutton's short-sighted and ill-educated opinions, as though Hutton's views were factual and written in stone (because he doesn't know everything about everything and often draws from a very limited knowledge-base)."

[stellablue]

wow! thank you so much for this thread.  i too have been wondering about where to begin, and this thread is packed full of information.  i will definitley be bookmarking it.  thanks!

[Fox]

Working in a university Library has its advantages ... I am deeply imbedded in The Irish mythological cycle and Celtic mythology, by Henri d’Arbois de Jubainville (Dublin : O’Donoghue, 1903).

Translated from the French, I'm already learning new stories and sources. Granted this is not widely available, but if you have access to a major university library they might be able to do an interlibrary loan for you.

[Alferian]

Hi MacMorrighan,

I see we are almost neighbors as I'm in Minnesota.  I appreciate your criticisms of Ronald, but I do think you are being a little hard on him.  I entirely agree that readers need to understand what he is trying to do.  Pagan Religions of the British Isles is by far his driest book and its thesis seemed to me to boil down to: "What do we know?  Not much!"  I wouldn't use the word "reductionistic" about his method.  It is just that he is trying to tease out what the facts are from the interpretations of the facts.  I cannot comment on Pocs as I don't know her work.  

You wrote:

Minimalism-- or reductionism-- is British academia's "fatal flaw".  It pressumes that we cannot, and will not, know what the paleo-pagan religions were like, so they default to a purely modern of Christian explaination, for example.  Hence, by adopting a reductionist/minimalist school of thought (especally when one hides this very biased approach from their audience!), he is allowed (and almost demanded) to reject whole swaths of evidence of highly reasonable and-- even moreso probable-- contrary conclusions!

I disagree with your interpretation of British minimalism.  If indeed it is a general characteristic of all British historians, I nevertheless feel that it is as much a strength as a weakness.  It is an unfortunate fact of language and publishing that Americans don't get to read most of the Continental European scholarship because it hasn't been translated into English and we don't read other languages all too often.  That would help put British methods into perspective.  They are a very cautious and skeptical lot.  Still, I enjoy Ronald's books Triumph of the Moon and Witches, Druids, and King Arthur.  I use Stations of the Sun in my course Wheel of the Year at Avalon Center but students often baulk at that one too, for the same reasons you describe: That he seems to be saying, well, there is just no verifiable evidence for many of the claims about modern pagan customs.  It's disallusioning to people who have taken everything they read about pagan fesitvals and the "Old Religion"  on faith, but they should realize that it's okay to admit that we don't know for sure.

Ronald's approach is to look for the evidence and try to draw conclusions from what is there and often there isn't much there.  I myself think that it is perfectly plausible that the stone age practices of the Britsh Isles were similar to those of the shamans, but most of the people who have asserted as much are engaging in guesswork or wishful thinking.  The fewer the facts, the easier it is to interpret them however you like.  

Anyway, Ronald is a longtime member of OBOD and, having had the pleasure of meeting him last summer, I appreciate his books very much.  I have no doubt that he suffers from the human foibles that all academics suffer from -- that they are inclined to dismiss people whose work they don't like, or ignore people who have criticized them in print.  

You are quite right that it is important for non-academics to understand that behind all the publications, scholars are just people. And to be aware that the books that we see in the popular bookstands are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to European scholarship (or even scholarship in English for that matter).  I do wish I read German and French.  I learned just enough French in college and grad school to know that much is lost in the translation, and I have long suspected that German is even harder to translate into English.  The sad thing is that my maternal grandfather spoke fluent German (high and low) and I didn't inherit any of that.  

This may not be the thread for it, but perhaps you can give us some links to the work of Continental scholars, or English articles that might incorporate their work?

Cheers,

Alferian

[MacMorrighan]

Hiya, Alferian!  Small world, huh!  

Yes, I may seem to be "too hard" on Hutton, but I believe it to be a necessary evil.  Pagans are simply in desperate need for an erudite, and learned, counter-balance, to know that their pet-scholar is frequently in error (and that's being polite!).

For example, in an article Hutton wrote in Folklore III, he states, "what Carlo Ginzburg has suggested is that some individuals accused of witchcraft in one district of Italy had vivid dreams in which they believed themselves to be leaving their bodies to do battle with witches for the good of the community."  This is, purely, mendacious dishonesty; Hutton tends to repeat it over and over again, hoping it will eventually become fact.  However, the truth of the matter is far different.  What Prof. Ginzburg argues is that there are distinct parallels with the Calusari, who are most definitely engaging in actual, physical rituals. He also gives a few examples where Benandanti spoke of actually physically travelling. Finally, he's not talking about "vivid dreams" but ecstatic visions of an unusually intense nature. He also documents that both the Inquisition and the people themselves considered themselves to be part of an organized sect, and this parallels well with the Calusari. Furthermore, Ginzburg does show that there were clear pagan survivals in this area. But Hutton doesn't like this fact and so tries to rephrase Ginzburg as if his own scholarship couldn't speak for itself.  Indeed, to apparently dismiss what Hutton cannot accept in Ginzburg, Hutton asserts that Ginzburg "generalizes too much".  What the...???  Who DOESN'T "generalize too much"?  And, why are British scholars somehow given a "get out of jail free" card when THEY generalize, but not when it's scholars from another country?  This is just one of manye xamples of hypocricy.

Well, my problem with, for example, Stations, is not that it questions what Pagans take for granted (that's, in fact, laudible!), but that he puts forth unsubstantiated expmainations as though it were empirical fact-- which it's not!  A parallel can be drawn between Pro. Historians and Pri. Skeptics, as I have observed them.  The Pro. Skeptic will say-- of course, they are already prejudiced-- that they have entirely debunked a proposed thesis because they were able to question it, regardless of the flimsy nature of the skeptic's arguments, even when far superior arguments have been levied for the contrary.

An example of such a schoalstically Pro. Skeptical agenda is beautifully exemplified by Mark Smith, re: Adonis being an evident Dying-and-Rising God.  Smith bitches about the following statement:

"As a memorial of his [Adonis'] suffering [i.e. his death] each year, they beat their breasts, mourn and... sacrifice to Adonis as if to a dead person, but then, on the next day, they proclaim that he lives and send him into the air" [Plutarch].  However, Smith states, oh-so-matter-of-factly that "the passage is hardly clear," and anyway other "rituals accentuate Adonis's death, there is no hint of rebirth." [Mark Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 2001, page 116].  Oh, puh-leeze!  Who's he trying to b.s.?

Now, don't get me started about sanctamonious scholars!  LOL...  They are the worse, and I accuse Hutton of being such.  Honestly, I don't trust Hutton's conclusions, and that is what I refuse to acknowledge in his books.  The dates he supplies, for example, is generally good.  But, his books are too-fileld with errors to be of any good use at all.  Far too much of his texts are simple wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!

I guess my biggest pet peeve is when I see folks unequivocally endorsing his texts without the slightest qualifying statement.  Pagans, for the msot part, are npotorious at this.  They accept all of his condlusions, and his ubsubstantoiated claims, as though they were fact.  And, this is simply tragic.  It's simply heart-breaking!

Also, Hutton can say "We don't really know" all he likes, however, he should not ommit his clearly subjective techniques from the mix.  He out and out refuses to acknowledge researchers and scholars that differ in opinion to him; hence, he refuses to "balance the equasion" and his books simply cannot be taken to be an objective historiography in the least.  Rather, they are works of polemics.  I, personally, maintain this.  It's when Hutton begins to state only one view that I begin to exclaim, "Oh, comne on, now, who are you trying to B.S.?"  

Now, as for Hutton's conclusions, there's plenty of evidence-- he just refuses to acknowledge it (as well as other scholars that happen to notice it, too) in any way.  But, a lot of his literature tends to draw firm conclusions from very limited research and evidence that don't take into account differing scholastic opinions and research.

Yet, none of this should be taken to imply that I find NO value in his books, but that he's made it harder for me, as a researcher, to grasp what REALLY may have been going on, and that I simply have to read those scholars that he negates for pedantic reasons to come to my own informed conclusions that are worth just as much as his.  I know his intentions were good, but he's further muddied the waters, as a result (particularly in the minds of the modern Pagan).

Oh, and I wish I knew fluent french and German, so I could make use of an academic book on The Morrighan for a thesis of mine that's in both French and German...why it's apparently in two languages, with brief phrases in English, I have no idea!

However, as for continental European scholars, I know of no sites of articles in English, but they have had works translated in English, so I would recommend books by the following, as an initial investigation:

Phylis Siefker, Eva Pocs, Claude Lecouteuz [Prof. of Medieval Studies at the Sorbonne], Carlo Ginzburg, Philipe Walter, and Gabor Klaniczay, etc.  None of these European schoplars have, to my knowledge, mentioned or cited Ronald Hutton or British academia as i differentiates from European scholars, etc.

Take Care,
Wade MacMorrighan