Another black propaganda job on Pearse

PatsytheNazi

Well Pearse's sexuality is a matter of contention ( as if their was nothing else to his life and is the sole focus of some 'historians'). However as far as doing a hatchet job on an historical Irish figure goes, a Marianne Elliot has published a complete black propaganda job on him. A professor in Liverpool Uni. she claims among other things that Pearse " had necrophilic thoughts about Emmet's lover, Sarah Curran " And what she has to offer to prove this - her 'interpretation' of Pearse's poetry e.g. Elliot says: "Here Pearse became haunted by the love story. He believed their spirits survived in the places where they lived. He imagined the presence of Sarah Curran and Emmet in its grounds and rooms, and pictured the 'young, slight figure' of Emmet . . . his 'noble head' . . . 'bent a little upon his breast'".

Ofcourse Sir Tony's comic the Indo reports her allegations with barely any criticism. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pearses-sex-obsession-with-emmets-corpse-494790.html

Now I don't believe that history should have sacred cows. But surely if something is to have any creditibility it should offer some definite proof rather than innuedo and an obvious agenda. And does anyone know anything about this Marianne Elliot ? Is she some sort of Eoghan Harris ?

Wolfe Tone

I read crap about that before... disgusting really.

PatsytheNazi

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I read crap about that before... disgusting really.

Well when it was reported faithfully in Sir Tony's comic it has to be I suppose.

brianthebard

Is there a reason you use the word 'black' in this context?

PatsytheNazi

brianthebard wrote: »

Is there a reason you use the word 'black' in this context?

Fair enough question.Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side.It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresentthe enemy.
Black propaganda contrasts with grey propaganda, the source of which is not identified, and white propaganda, in which the real source is declared and usually more accurate information is given, if also slanted or distorted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_propaganda

CDfm

Do we know anything about Pierces sexuality or his spirituality.

I read somewhere that as a youngster Pierce was something of an artists model ,something his father put a stop to. He used to dress up etc.

He had idea's about blood sacrifice -which I find odd. His brother Willie followed him to death and others followed him in 1916. For someone who was not charismatic he inspired loyalty.

Lots of people like his contempoary Sir Artur Conan-Doyle -he was into his spiritualism, http://www.fst.org/doyle.htm & http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Houdini_and_Conan_Doyle/

Wasnt Yeats an occultist too.

Why should Pierce as a modern open minded guy of that era not have had similar idea's.


Patsy - you may not agree with what she has written, but, you should want to know to know more about what made him tick before dismissing her work.She is discussing it from a literary perspective which allows her made huge leaps. I can't see why Patrick Pierce's idea's on life should not be examined

I would love to know more and if Marrianne Elliots ideas about him are unfounded or wildly speculation , then, this is the best way to do it.

PatsytheNazi

CDfm wrote: »

Do we know anything about Pierces sexuality or his spirituality.

I read somewhere that as a youngster Pierce was something of an artists model ,something his father put a stop to. He used to dress up etc.

He had idea's about blood sacrifice -which I find odd. His brother Willie followed him to death and others followed him in 1916. For someone who was not charismatic he inspired loyalty.

Lots of people like his contempoary Sir Artur Conan-Doyle -he was into his spiritualism, http://www.fst.org/doyle.htm & http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Houdini_and_Conan_Doyle/

Wasnt Yeats an occultist too.

Why should Pierce as a modern open minded guy of that era not have had similar idea's.


Patsy - you may not agree with what she has written, but, you should want to know to know more about what made him tick before dismissing her work.She is discussing it from a literary perspective which allows her made huge leaps. I can't see why Patrick Pierce's idea's on life should not be examined

I would love to know more and if Marrianne Elliots ideas about him are unfounded or wildly speculation , then, this is the best way to do it.

Goodpoint about Conan Doyle etc But still, you won't find her or the similiar writing nonsense about British figures such as "Kiss me Hardy" Nelson, who did Churchill, Wellington, Haig etc "fag" for at secondary school etc now do you :rolleyes:

To me it's obvious that Elliot and many others like her aren't trying to shed new light on an aspect of person in history but have a clear agenda of discrediting Pearse etc while taking a general swipe at Irish nationalism regarding Emmet, Sarah Curran etc

CDfm

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

Goodpoint about Conan Doyle etc But still, you won't find her or the similiar writing nonsense about British figures such as "Kiss me Hardy" Nelson, who did Churchill, Wellington, Haig etc "fag" for at secondary school etc now do you :rolleyes:

Pearse moving his school to Sarah Curran's former family home was natural as an Emmett fan.

He was not a practical man & the move was a financial disaster and others pledged help that they did not deliver. His brother Willie & Thomas McDonagh both suppoerted it financially.

Pearse not taking a risk to get Sarah Currans former family home is like David Norris not living in a Georgian house given the opportunity. He was an Emmett fan - so what.

So I think she has overreached herself.

Also, you also do not forget that the British do not have similar figures in their history. The closest she could probably get is the World War I war poets and then sheis not comparing llike with like. They were establishment figures while Pearse was not.

And, Pearses impact far exceeds that of a contemporary British war poet.

Look at these,

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/war_poets.html

Denerick

Marianne Elliot first made mention of Pearse's 'necrophilia' in her book about Robert Emmet (Which is really quite good, I'd recommend it) That was yonks ago.

I think these criticisms of Pearse are at best misguided and at worst quite silly. Yes, there is a case to be made that he was rather... odd... and that this oddity contributes to a general impression of the man (I don't hold a high opinion of him) but it is a point argued on the wrong basis, and for the wrong reasons IMO.

CDfm

I could never understand Pearse, and, thats no reason for the writer to make fanciful claims about him. His brand of patriotism was a kind that I don't understand but my grandfathers would & did.

He was eccentric. Then I heard Pat Rabitte on the radio today, criticising spending policies I had heard him advocate and he does sound a bit spirited -so maybe thats what these guys are like.

There is a difference between factual information & reasonable conjecture. This necrophilia thing is way OTT and would make me not want to read her book.It destroys her credibility of her book for me. If this is fresh insight she is scraping the bottom of the barrell.

I often have thought that WW1 contributed to 1916 as the idea of dying for King & Country was widely touted & masses of guys storming the trenches to their deaths.. That it made the jump over to nationalism is not a huge leap. It was the order of the day.

Denerick

I wouldn't refuse to read a book because of one questionable claim - if I remember from the Emmet book she was referring to Pearse's hermitage, the school near the area where Emmet and Curran used to walk around as young lovers. Pearse was enamoured by this and as far as I recall wrote about how he felt those spirits followed him.

MarchDub

Marianne Elliott to me is a suspect historian in that her work does not primarily deal with researching the record of events. I have had this view of her since I read her "Catholics of Ulster' - and especially from what she reveals in the Prologue of that book. She states boldly that she grew up with a lot of prejudice against 'Ulster' Protestants, English and Scottish people and her 'revelation' on actually working with them that they were all not as bad as she was told is her journey through life - I am paraphrasing. Her "Catholics of Ulster" book is full of attacks on the attitudes, wrong headedness and outlooks of nationalists in that region.

But this is not the job of a historian - really - to put your own personal feelings, personal experiences into your work. It totally negates her as an honest researcher. For this reason I think she strays from the path of 'what's on the record' to 'how can I overcome' my own past. It feels like she is substituting one prejudice for another TBH. And for all this she was given an OBE - I am not saying this lightly, but she plays the card of 'reformed Irish' to the English court.

She is apparently doing it again with Pearse. I haven't read the book but she appears to be trying to discredit him with a load of nonsense. Who's next for discrediting from her? Parnell and the divorce scandal? Jeez...

Morlar

The link is from 2003 and I would take it as someone ridiculously generating publicity for financial gain. I think the independent coverage of all of this was just as bad.

jonniebgood1

If these are opinions of hers to be taken as highlights from a publication, it would not be a great reflection, although I agree not solely a reason to avoid reading it.

To me it is reminiscint of the type of channel 4 or channel 5 opinion based docu-programmes where they get B list celebrities or pseudo- doctors to express their outlandish but slightly quirky opinions with the main aim being titilation rather than investigation.

MarchDub

All in all this is nothing more than a hatchet job on Pearse and using his so called 'private life' to do so - not an unusual method to try to discredit anybody. As I mentioned Parnell - and therefore Home Rule - was destroyed by this very means.

Listen guys, if all our private thoughts and actions were blazoned into books there would be few to come away as not sounding weird or bizarre. As George Bernard Shaw explained "What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything".

brianthebard

MarchDub wrote: »

All in all this is nothing more than a hatchet job on Pearse and using his so called 'private life' to do so - not an unusual method to try to discredit anybody. As I mentioned Parnell - and therefore Home Rule - was destroyed by this very means.

One could (and maybe should) go further and look at the treatment of Casement. He was tried on the basis of an alleged homosexuality, the only evidence of which were the 'black diaries', the legitimacy of which has been debated since 1916. Afaik there is even less evidence to suggest that Pearse was gay and even moreso 'necrophilic' tendencies, apart from vague interpretations of texts which may or may not actually deal with these things! At least Parnell actually had an affair.

Denerick

brianthebard wrote: »

One could (and maybe should) go further and look at the treatment of Casement. He was tried on the basis of an alleged homosexuality, the only evidence of which were the 'black diaries', the legitimacy of which has been debated since 1916. Afaik there is even less evidence to suggest that Pearse was gay and even moreso 'necrophilic' tendencies, apart from vague interpretations of texts which may or may not actually deal with these things! At least Parnell actually had an affair.

To be fair it has been proven definitively that Roger Casement was a homosexual. To me the greater outrage is that some Republicans and nationalists are so appalled that one of their heroes may have been a homosexual that they are prepared to blindly reject any and all evidence that has emerged in the last half century regarding this. Casement's sexuality is whollely irrelevant; he was a remarkable and honourable human being regardless.

W.J. Mc Cormack wrote an interesting book regarding this 'Haunting the Free State'. In it he rebuts many of the logical fallacies forwarded by Republican interests. He also chaired an official investigation that involved forensic examinations of the black diaries; the BBC did an excellent documentary about this not too long ago which is available on the internet. Furthermore every serious biographical study of Casement has concluded that his sexuality was unambiguous.

Anyway, this is a different thread entirely and has nothing whatsoever to do with the alledged paraphilia of Patrick Pearse.

MarchDub

brianthebard wrote: »

One could (and maybe should) go further and look at the treatment of Casement. He was tried on the basis of an alleged homosexuality, the only evidence of which were the 'black diaries', the legitimacy of which has been debated since 1916. Afaik there is even less evidence to suggest that Pearse was gay and even moreso 'necrophilic' tendencies, apart from vague interpretations of texts which may or may not actually deal with these things! At least Parnell actually had an affair.

I put the whole mess in the same bucket - I don't give a damn what they did in their private lives whether we can 'prove' it or not - or whether they were 'guilty' [I hate to use that word so put it in quotes] or not.

TBH Parnell's involvement in a so called 'divorce scandal' matters not one iota to me that it was true. He was a great man and great leader who loved his country, end of. As Yeats wrote "Parnell loved his country and Parnell loved his lass".

Same goes for Casement.

Denerick - I don't agree that 'republicans' as a body want to disprove the Casement diaries - there is anger that the charges were brought against him and were the catalyst used to successfully destroy him and understandably there was great suspicion of a frame up. Also the way they were presented in court the picture painted was not merely 'homosexual' but 'degenerate' - so it is understandable that attempts should be made to clear him of this.

What is so sickening for me is that all this faux morality outrage frequently succeeds. And now we face it again in this Marianne Elliott book.

CDfm

I think new historians publishing nowadays invariably look to dig the dirt.

It is a pity, as Pearse is an interesting guy and the truth about him would also be fascinating.

Denerick

MarchDub wrote: »

Denerick - I don't agree that 'republicans' as a body want to disprove the Casement diaries - there is anger that the charges were brought against him and were the catalyst used to successfully destroy him and understandably there was great suspicion of a frame up. Also the way they were presented in court the picture painted was not merely 'homosexual' but 'degenerate' - so it is understandable that attempts should be made to clear him of this.

I fully understand that, and it was a product of the time he lived in - to be homosexual was to be a deviant, a degenerate. However we thankfully live in a far more open and liberal age and such bigotries are thankfully a thing of the past to most people.

I can only go from personal experience and I've heard something along the lines of 'they claim an Irish patriot was a deviant' all the time. Its a self evidently stupid position to have. I'm not suggesting you hold such opinions I hope you know, my point is much more general. The facts are this. Casement was gay. This is not extraordinary in itself. It is not a reason to think less of the man. It was in 1916 but as I have already said, those were trying times for people who were a bit different.

mathepac

More nonsense from Tony's Tabloid.

CDfm wrote: »

Do we know anything about Pierces sexuality or his spirituality. ...

We know a bit.

Pearse's love for the tragically drowned Eileen MacNicholl(s ?) was such that her brother attested to the fact that he proposed marriage to her and his grief at her death seems to jump out of the stanzas he dedicated to her.

Even Ruth Dudley Edwards, that queen amongst historical revisionists, didn't go as far as what Elliot is suggesting although she dismissed the marriage proposal.

I know that proposing marriage or even being married doesn't prove Pearse's sexual preference one way or another, but given his reticence about his private life, the opportunity is there for some commentators to manufacture both the smoke and the fire to fill the vacuum.

CDfm

mathepac wrote: »

We know a bit.

Pearse's love for the tragically drowned Eileen MacNicholl(s ?) was such that her brother attested to the fact that he proposed marriage to her and his grief at her death seems to jump out of the stanzas he dedicated to her.

Even Ruth Dudley Edwards, that queen amongst historical revisionists, didn't go as far as what Elliot is suggesting although she dismissed the marriage proposal.

He either proposed marriage or not - it is a question of fact.

In fact, a lot of the History we were taught was in an asexual context and Pearse was taught in a fairly priest like manner. Michael Collins on the other hand is the man and there is lots of speculation about him and Lady Laverly etc.

So maybe its hard to imagine him at the back of a cinema with a young one but not Collins.

I know that proposing marriage or even being married doesn't prove Pearse's sexual preference one way or another, but given his reticence about his private life, the opportunity is there for some commentators to manufacture both the smoke and the fire to fill the vacuum.

This was his last poem before his execution.

It is a sad little poem but hardly other worldly obsessed or metaphysical.

The people who knew him best probably died with him.


The Wayfarer

The beauty of the world hath made me sad,
This beauty that will pass;
Sometimes my heart hath shaken with great joy
To see a leaping squirrel in a tree
Or a red lady-bird upon a stalk,
Or little rabbits in a field at evening,
Lit by a slanting sun,
Or some green hill where shadows drifted by
Some quiet hill where mountainy man hath sown
And soon would reap; near to the gate of Heaven;
Or children with bare feet upon the sands
Of some ebbed sea, or playing on the streets
Of little towns in Connacht,
Things young and happy.
And then my heart hath told me:
These will pass,
Will pass and change, will die and be no more,
Things bright and green, things young and happy;
And I have gone upon my way
Sorrowful.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/poetry/97177-last-poem-patrick-pearse.html

mathepac

He either proposed marriage or not - it is a question of fact... The people who knew him best probably died with him....

I guess we'll never know for sure, certainly as a very amateur student of history I'll never get access to information sources that confirm one view or another.

CDfm wrote: »

... So maybe its hard to imagine him at the back of a cinema with a young one but not Collins....

For sure Mick seemed to nurture that robust, larger-than-life, man's-man image, a subterfuge to better disguise his intelligence, planning and organisational abilities, IMHO.

Pearse on the other hand seemed to be more of an intellectual and an aesthete, but was also a man of action and although perhaps lacking Collins's dynamism and hard practicality he undertook the fund-raising tour to the US when the Gaelscoileanna ran into financial troubles as well as inspiring great loyalty from those around him. Was he in fact a sort of prototypical Dev for Dev?

CDfm wrote: »

... This was his last poem before his execution.

It is a sad little poem but hardly other worldly obsessed or metaphysical. ...

I've always interpretated that poem to be one written by a man in the depths of despair; a man facing death with nothing to look forward to, leaving all he loved behind.

This is the little poem to Eileen (or Eveleen as I discovered she is called elsewhere). It's from CELT and the punctuation in the last three lines of the second stanza (if it's true to the original) seems odd to me. Does the O Lovely Head title imply that it was only her brain that attracted him?

O lovely head of the woman that I loved,
In the middle of the night I remember thee;
But reality returns with the sun's whitening,
Alas, that the slender worm gnaws thee to-night.

Beloved voice, that wast low and beautiful,
Is it true that I heard thee in my slumbers!
Or is the knowledge true that tortures me?
My grief, the tomb hath no sound or voice?

CDfm

What age was he when executed 36 or 7 - so he was a relatively young man when he died & younger when she did.

I imagine that it influenced him to some extent and is more relevant than what the new book highlights.

Its conjecture, but his perilous finances might have had something to do with their inability to get married and from a practical point of view there are more obvious reasons including the culture at the time and his religous beliefs on why he was the way he was.