What Mythology Actually Means in Celtic Reconstructionism
Celtic Reconstructionism starts with a claim that sounds simple: the gods are real, distinct beings, and the primary way to know them is through the historical record. That claim has practical consequences that separate CR from most modern pagan approaches to the same material.
The CR FAQ divides sources into primary, secondary, and tertiary.1 Primary material is the manuscripts and folklore recorded directly from living tradition. Secondary is scholarship: translations, academic analysis, critical editions. Tertiary is books and articles that use on primary and secondary sources.
The hierarchy is about traceability. If you’re working with the Dagda, your understanding of him comes from direct translations of texts like the Cath Maige Tuired and Lebor Gabála Érenn. Secondary scholarship like Gods and Heroes of the Celts by Marie-Louise Sjoestedt is useful for context.
Much of the written record, including Lebor Gabála Érenn, contains internal contradictions. CR treats this as evidence that the tradition was always alive and contested, not a fixed revealed truth.
How CR Differs from Neopagan Approaches
Most modern pagan traditions treat the gods as archetypes: aspects of a larger divine principle, interchangeable across cultures, selectable based on the practitioner’s need. CR rejects this.1 The Dagda and Zeus are not different masks on the same face. The Morrígan is not a stand-in for any other war goddess. These are specific beings with specific relationships to specific places, texts, and expectations.
You can’t build a CR practice by pulling a Celtic deity name from a list and pairing it with Wiccan or ceremonial magic ritual structures. The theological and cultural context is part of what you’re working with.1
CR also resists pan-Celtic practice, treating Irish, Welsh, and Gaulish material as interchangeable because they’re all “Celtic.” The traditions are related but distinct. Irish CR works with Irish sources and Irish context.1
UPG (Unverified Personal Gnosis) is spiritual experience that can’t be substantiated by historical sources.1 CR doesn’t dismiss it, but requires that practitioners label it clearly so personal experience doesn’t contaminate the shared record.
The lore takes precedence because it represents the accumulated, tested framework of a tradition. Personal gnosis is individual data. It might be genuine communication from a deity. It might be projection. There’s nothing wrong with having UPG in your own practice, but you shouldn’t expect others to adopt it as well (unless you’re able to back up your position with evidence).
Relationship and Reciprocity
CR practice requires no fixed liturgy and no priestly intermediary. Practitioners develop ongoing relationships with specific deities through prayer, offering, and sustained engagement with the lore.1 The model is closer to a relationship built over time than to a ritual system: you show up consistently, learn what the other party values, and maintain your obligations.
The reciprocity framework comes from Irish culture directly. Altar inscriptions from the early period show offerings made in fulfillment of vows, payment for services rendered.1 Relationship with the divine involves mutual obligation: the gods have responsibilities toward those in relationship with them, and practitioners have responsibilities in return. Hospitality and keeping your word are the structure of the practice, not courtesies layered on top of it.
Offerings in CR are participation in an exchange that sustains the relationship.
Sovereignty Theology as a Practical Lens
The Irish sovereignty goddess concept is usually presented as historical background: a goddess personifies the land, the king marries her symbolically, abundance follows.2 That framing treats it as a political metaphor the medieval Irish used to justify kingship.
CR practice goes further. The theological principle is that legitimate relationship with land requires reciprocity, proper conduct, and acknowledgment of the land’s divine character. A just king produces abundance, a false king produces blight. That causality isn’t limited to Bronze Age political arrangements.2
For practitioners in the diaspora working with Irish tradition outside Ireland, this generates real questions about obligation and place, questions the CR community is still working through.1
Working with Ériu or the Morrígan in their sovereignty aspects means engaging with that framework. The mythology is the record of the theology, and the theology generates the practice.
Whether the ancient Irish wholly believed their myths the way a modern person believes a news report is unanswerable. Their literary tradition was sophisticated and self-conscious: the filid reworked myths across generations. Paul Veyne’s Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? offers a useful framework for how ancient peoples could hold myth as simultaneously sacred, historical, and poetic without contradiction.
For CR practitioners, the question isn’t whether you accept the Lebor Gabála Érenn as historical fact before approaching the gods. The myths provide a framework for knowing who these beings are, what they value, and what a right relationship with them looks like. That framework is what CR asks you to engage with.
CR FAQ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
Celtic Mythology by Proinsias Mac Cana ↩︎ ↩︎
dededos
areudirty
jbbartram-illu
turnnoffyourmind
tangentwithtanner
izzy806
ellievsbear
