Padraig Pearse

Mairin1978

Morlar wrote: »

He was not married. He was reportedly in a relationship with a woman who drowned, he was reported to have been engaged to her. So it does seem as if you are approaching the subject from a skewed viewpoint, whereby the far more stastically likely probability is put on an equal footing with the far less statistically likely possibility and there seems to be no basis for this whatsoever. Couple this with the 'some psychologists suggest that he had not yet entered puberty' and it adds up to an imbalanced viewpoint in my opinion.

I repeat, it was never "reported". In his tribute to Eveleen he referred to her as "a dear friend". He did not say "my would-be-wife". Again, I am not excluding the possibility that he fancied her romantically, but having vague longings is not incompatible with psychological/sexual delay. Even 12-year old boys fancy girls. If you read his poetry and prose, you'll see that the female figures in them are porcelain angels, not flesh-and-blood beings.

Morlar

Mairin1978 wrote: »

I repeat, it was never "reported". In his tribute to Eveleen he referred to her as "a dear friend". He did not say "my would-be-wife". Again, I am not excluding the possibility that he fancied her romantically, but having vague longings is not incompatible with psychological/sexual delay. Even 12-year old boys fancy girls. If you read his poetry and prose, you'll see that the female figures in them are porcelain angels, not flesh-and-blood beings.

No offence but your assertions and suspicions seem to have no basis in fact whatsoever. I think they belong in the conspiracies forum. 'Some psychologists suggest' . . those have got to be among the 3 least convincing words in the english language. Along with 'not incompatible with'.

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

Please, site those sources. A few months ago when we chatted you appeared to hold a different opinion. I'd be interested to see what made you change your mind. I have "A Dark Day on the Blaskets", but even that book does not assert 100% that Pearse and Eveleen were engaged. The fact that they knew and respected each other is a confirmed fact. Was there anything beyond friendship?

I cited my sources and looked at others but I could not find any facts to back up the hypothesis that Pearse was a homosexual.

There was some issues which meant the family desired privacy but there was no secrecy.

Now , why would a one time magazine editor and teacher leave copius correspondence -they wont . There is no literary estate or politicians library.

I didn't realise until I looked that what is being passed off as history is speculation and a badly researched biography referencing another does not do the historians any credit.

Part of the fun of this thread has been that.

Brianthebard ,the Moderator, is a good guy and academic and looked at the reasonableness of the sources. One of the family commented too

Being browsing Pearse Story. You have uncovered a great deal of material, some of which I am familiar with but there are other bits and pieces that I must spend some time studying.
Most interesting. My Great-grandfather was Alfred Ignatius Mc Gloughlin. He married Emily Pearse daughter of James Pearse and Susanna (Emily) Fox

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71876048&postcount=116

He is a descendant of the half sister of Patrick & William and the big sister who taught them to read.

So if he or the family are not prone to snap comments and judgements on his relative maybe we should not be either.

On Pearses piece on Eveleen Nicholls. Well , it was the 1900's in Catholic Ireland where it was considered libelous to comment on a woman's virtue. Commenting on a dead womans virtue was a no-no.

Getting engaged was a serious business and not going thru with a marriage could mean a civil suit for "breach of promise" & damages.

So the book "A Dark Day on the Blaskets" will assume these cultural reference points.

Mairin1978

Morlar wrote: »

No offence but your assertions and suspicions seem to have no basis in fact whatsoever. I think they belong in the conspiracies forum. 'Some psychologists suggest' . . those have got to be among the 3 least convincing words in the english language. Along with 'not incompatible with'.

Um... I am not involved enough to generate any conspiracy theories. And I don't assert anything, merely quote certain sources. You are the one who seems so convinced that Pearse was involved with Eveleen. Read "Little Lad of the Tricks".:D

Do I come across as someone who's aiming to convince anyone of anything?

Morlar

Mairin1978 wrote: »

Um... I am not involved enough to generate any conspiracy theories. And I don't assert anything, merely quote certain sources. You are the one who seems so convinced that Pearse was involved with Eveleen. Read "Little Lad of the Tricks".:D

Do I come across as someone who's aiming to convince anyone of anything?

I have read it and yes it seems certain that you are out to cast doubts and aspersions on his sexuality, only without a reasonable level of evidence to back it up.

Mairin1978

CDfm wrote: »

I cited my sources and looked at others but I could not find any facts to back up the hypothesis that Pearse was a homosexual.

There was some issues which meant the family desired privacy but there was no secrecy.

Now , why would a one time magazine editor and teacher leave copius correspondence -they wont . There is no literary estate or politicians library.

I didn't realise until I looked that what is being passed off as history is speculation and a badly researched biography referencing another does not do the historians any credit.

Part of the fun of this thread has been that.

Brianthebard ,the Moderator, is a good guy and academic and looked at the reasonableness of the sources. One of the family commented too

He is a descendant of the half sister of Patrick & William and the big sister who taught them to read.

So if he or the family are not prone to snap comments and judgements on his relative maybe we should not be either.

On Pearses piece on Eveleen Nicholls. Well , it was the 1900's in Catholic Ireland where it was considered libelous to comment on a woman's virtue. Commenting on a dead womans virtue was a no-no.

Getting engaged was a serious business and not going thru with a marriage could mean a civil suit for "breach of promise" & damages.

So the book "A Dark Day on the Blaskets" will assume these cultural reference points.

Ummm.... Am I having a braindead day today? Don't seem to be able to get my point across. Homosexuality is not the only alternative to traditional heterosexuality. Asexuality is a perfectly viable choice. And let's not get too carried away with the notion of Catholic Ireland being a place of fanatical chastity. Catholic Ireland was also a home to one of Europe's largest red light districts.

I didn't realize we needed anyone's special permission from Pearse's relatives to trade ideas and site passages from books written by others. I am not "married" to Moran or Dudley Edwards ideologically. I don't consider their books to be Holy Gospel. Still, they should not be dismissed 100%, as there is such thing as peer review in non-fiction publishing.

Mairin1978

Morlar wrote: »

I have read it and yes it seems certain that you are out to cast doubts and aspersions on his sexuality, only without a reasonable level of evidence to back it up.

Hate to disappoint you, but I'm not suggesting anything that hasn't been suggested before. You appear to be the paranoid one here, thinking that I have some sort of agenda. Casting doubts and questioning and wondering is not the same as asserting. Let's just say... when a grown man writes about kissing a male child on the lips, that's a little... hm...

Morlar

Mairin1978 wrote: »

You appear to be the paranoid one here, thinking that I have some sort of agenda. Casting doubts and questioning and wondering is not the same as asserting. Let's just say... when a grown man writes about kissing a male child on the lips, that's a little... hm...

Not paranoid in the slightest.

My view is that your approach is distorted. I have asked you directly why you would give equal weight to different possibilities, while the most statistically likely one is the one you seem to disregard at every opportunity, and on no reasonable basis whatsoever.

I'd base my opinion that your approach (to the subject of P.P's sexuality) is skewed on the evidence of the posts you have made across the last page or so of this thread. With respect I think it is time to stop feeding the troll.

Paddy De Plasterer

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Patrick and Willie had 2 half sisters of whom have living relatives today. Their father was a protestant, though most of his work was for Catholic Churches. The boys mother was a catholic and they were raised Catholics.

Yes, no one seems to know they had half sisters, but as I said in an earlier post, Pearses great great grand nephew has the exact same features as Pearse himself, amazing how it has travelled to this day in the family's genes!

Pearse's converted to Roman Catholicism purpose of which of course was for his business, inserting altar rails and such is all the new chuches being built around that time.
There is some evidence that Patrick had a fondness for young boys.

Mairin1978

Morlar wrote: »

Not paranoid in the slightest.

My view is that your approach is distorted. I have asked you directly why you would give equal weight to different possibilities, while the most statistically likely one is the one you seem to disregard at every opportunity, and on no reasonable basis whatsoever.

I'd base my opinion that your approach (to the subject of P.P's sexuality) is skewed on the evidence of the posts you have made across the last page or so of this thread. With respect I think it is time to stop feeding the troll.

The reason why I give equal weight to different possibilities is because I was not there, and I was not inside Pearse's head. And you cannot regard him from the point of view of statistics, because he defied the statistics.

By the way, the proper term is "trawl", not "troll". In other words, if one's opinion does not coincide with yours, that makes one a trawl? Gee, that's really logical.

Mairin1978

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Pearse's converted to Roman Catholicism purpose of which of course was for his business, inserting altar rails and such is all the new chuches being built around that time.
There is some evidence that Patrick had a fondness for young boys.

Enough evidence to make a mother of a boy scratch her head in bewilderment and think twice about sending her son to his school.

CDfm

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Pearse's converted to Roman Catholicism purpose of which of course was for his business, inserting altar rails and such is all the new chuches being built around that time.
.

He did some beautiful altars that are still in use with a very distinctive modern style often substantially better than the churches they were in.

He converted to get married to a Catholic following the death of his first wife and he married a girl who worked in a local shop.

There is some evidence that Patrick had a fondness for young boys

Mairin1978 wrote: »

Enough evidence to make a mother of a boy scratch her head in bewilderment and think twice about sending her son to his school.

There is a piece of writing by Pearse "little lad of tricks" that has attracted analysis.

It is controvercial.

Pearse challenged the homophobia of his times
From Peter Pallas
I SEE Dick Keane was on his favourite hobby-horse (29 September) taking an opportunistic stick to Patrick Pearse on the issue of the commemorative stamp. Whatever about the issue of the stamp, he (Keane) takes a cynical, despicable and personal opportunity to accuse Pearse, by inference, of child molestation, in quoting his poem.


If Pearse was around in this enlightened time, his poem would be lauded, not only by the 'gay' community, but by all open-minded people. To publish a poem of such nature in the homophobic times in which Pearse lived was the act of a brave man indeed. In that context, he went on to prove his bravery later, when he, and men and women of his ilk, fought for, and died, to rid this country of the yoke of British imperialism.


Peter Pallas,


Toberteascain,


Ennis, Co Clare.


October 12, 2008

Comments

#1 Terry Jennings commented, on October 13, 2008 at 3:25 p.m.: That poem by Pearse has been presented as homoerotic, but this might be overlooking a 19th century poetic trend of romanticisation of childhood innocence.
It would help if a literary critic from academia with a specialist interest in 19th century English, predominantly British, romantic poetry would offer some observations on the literary idealisation of childhood.
Wordsworth did believe the Rousseauist idea that the small child is basically good but that as it gets older the evil experiences of adulthood 'ensnare the growing boy'. cf. Intimations of Immortality and other poems.
My own view of Pearse was that he was sexless and would never have married had he survived 1916. I'd say he was married to St. Enda's and the de-anglicisation of Irish culture and was too oblivious of sex and erotic feelings to harbour homoerotic or pederast feelings. I wouldn't enlist Freud into a close reading of his poem.


http://www.tribune.ie/article/2008/oct/12/pearse-challenged-the-homophobia-of-his-times/

The one way to derail a Pearse thread is to make allegations of child abuse.

Innuendo ain't facts.

Why cant a parent decide not to send a child to a school?

Mairin1978

What have I been trying to get across all this time? He was asexual. His development in that regard never culminated. Sexual infantilism is a form of asexuality. There are people who have very vague idea of what sexuality is, and they have very low libido, or they channel it into other things. His good friend MacDonagh, who had studied to be a priest, went on to have a perfectly happy marriage. You don't see MacDonagh (or Plunkett for that matter) gushing over the physique of young boys.

I do commend Pearse on not fathering any children. Otherwise they would've been left orphans. It's really sad what happened to MacDonagh's wife and kids. I know I'm going to get bombarded with rotten spuds for saying that, but if you have children, you don't have the liberty to dispose of your life like that. You have to make a choice: either your Cause or your family.

Mairin1978

Paddy De Plasterer wrote: »

Pearse's converted to Roman Catholicism purpose of which of course was for his business, inserting altar rails and such is all the new chuches being built around that time.

James Pearse was a cynical enough man to do that - to convert to Catholicism for convenience. In reality, he was an agnostic, so it didn't matter to him what religion he officially belonged to. He also made the spelling of his name more Gaelic. Originally it was Pierce.

CDfm

For those who do not know the poem

Here is the UCC link

http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/E950004-009/text001.html

Sisson is on much firmer ground when interpreting the productions themselves in the context of Pearse's wider canon. Some readers, especially those wed to the image of the saintly martyr of 1916, may shy away from her frank discussion of Pearse's sexuality and its relationship to his art. Much like Thomas MacDonagh and Joseph Mary Plunkett, who tried to dissuade Pearse from publishing his pederastic 1909 poem "Little Lad of the Tricks," they may not want to acknowledge that such impulses existed. But as Sisson persuasively argues, there is a difference between impulse and action. And "it was," she notes, "the sublimation of Pearse's sexuality that produced such a remarkable interweaving of discourses on aesthetics, martyrdom, masculinity and nationhood" (p. 152). In numerous plays, stories, and poems, Pearse the artist fixated on the figure of the fair-haired macaomh, who sacrificed for others or inspired them to act. Meanwhile, through stagecraft, Pearse the educator encouraged his students to embody these same boys, figuratively at least--a message which was not lost on the students themselves or on their audiences.

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11097

Wasn't there also some speculation at some stage that Pearse was a child model for artists and was an abuse victim himself based on his own writtings

Few visitors came to our house. My father had not ,many intimate friends. Those who did come to see him were mostly artists whom he had known in other place, and who looked in upon him when passing through Dublin. I liked them for their quaint costumes, and their humour and gentleness . Ever since I have looked upon painters and sculptors as a kindly and loveable and pathetic race.
Most of those who came to see us seemed poor, and many of them seemed sad. There was one who used to kiss my little sister tenderly ands say: 'God bless thee, little one!' And when he was going away he used to say that my father was fortunate to have children around him.
Many of these visitors made drawings and paintings of me; sometimes of my head only, and sometimes of my whole body without any clothes on. They said I had a thoughtful face, and that I was finely shaped. I think what they valued me chiefly for was my faculty of remaining still for a long time.
I liked the stand - or, better still, to lie - without my clothes in the warmth of the fire, and to think out my thoughts. Some of the longest stories I ever made up about myself were made up while a man was making a picture of me stretched on my face with my chin resting on my hands. He said I was the best and quietest little model he had ever had. I used to be drawn and modelled and painted by people until my father and mother thought I was getting too big.


http://pillar.ds4a.com/padraicpearse/biofrag.htm

The other explanation of the poem is that something happened him.

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

He also made the spelling of his name more Gaelic. Originally it was Pierce.

Speculation asthe Pierce families in Cork, Kerry & Wexford all use the Pierce spelling.

Here is a RC family from Kerry in 1825 .

http://www.carsonjohnson.com/chapter16-pierce.htm

Mairin1978

One thing is certain: Pearse did not have a cloudless childhood. He was a very confused little boy, neglected by his father, smothered by the female relatives in his life. He did not have a balanced upbringing.

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

One thing is certain: Pearse did not have a cloudless childhood.

I think you are looking at him in the wrong way.

We have sparse knowledge of his childhood. And from the very begining his family stayed schtum. His close friends also were dead or kept quiet.

So there are few real sources.

He was a very confused little boy, neglected by his father,

There is no evidence his father neglected him by the standards of the day and if so how ?

He joined the gaelic league as a teen and hung out with the great and good.

The Pearse family were prosperous tradespeople and went on to be college educated when people were not.

smothered by the female relatives in his life. He did not have a balanced upbringing.

Women raised kids in those days.

As an adult he had a holiday home in Connemara ran a successful magazine , inherited a share in a business that closed during a recession and made a disasterous decision to move his school from where it was accessable and running at a modest profit in Ranelagh to inaccessable Rathfarnham.
.

Mairin1978

But you see, I don't think he had that many friends. Mostly colleagues/comrades. He was attached to his brother, very much.

I don't think there's a right or wrong way to look at Pearse. The man was an enigma. You can either view him as a hero/martyr or as a madman.

Mairin1978

Re: unbalanced upbringing. His parents were an ill-matched couple. Their marriage was unbalanced. His mother being much younger than his father and intellectually inferior. She was simple, emotional and affectionate, while James was aloof, depressed and intellectual. He was not emotionally available to his children. Even by the standards of the day he was an aloof father. I mean, look at Tom MacDonagh, how he doted on his kids (that didn't prevent him from getting killed).

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

But you see, I don't think he had that many friends. Mostly colleagues/comrades. He was attached to his brother, very much.

He had McDonagh and Plunkett

I don't think there's a right or wrong way to look at Pearse. The man was an enigma. You can either view him as a hero/martyr or as a madman.

Factually is a good way

Mairin1978 wrote: »

Re: unbalanced upbringing. His parents were an ill-matched couple. Their marriage was unbalanced. His mother being much younger than his father and intellectually inferior. She was simple, emotional and affectionate, while James was aloof, depressed and intellectual. He was not emotionally available to his children. Even by the standards of the day he was an aloof father..

James blamed his first wife for the deaths of two young children and all accounts of the marriage describe it happily.

Mairin1978

MacDonagh and Plunkett were both misfits to an extent. MacDonagh had the stigma of being a "spoiled priest", and Plunkett had medical issues and a mentally abusive mother. And they were the ones who urged him not to publish "Little Lad".

As for James Pearse's marriage, there is evidence that the spouses had a falling out after Mary Brigit's birth. It's suggested that all physical intimacy between them stopped. Again, I use the word "suggested". Oh, the horror!:D

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

MacDonagh and Plunkett were both misfits to an extent. MacDonagh had the stigma of being a "spoiled priest", and Plunkett had medical issues and a mentally abusive mother. And they were the ones who urged him not to publish "Little Lad".

I am not fans of either but I think you are reading too much into it.

There is no evidence that Pierce abused anyone.

As for James Pearse's marriage, there is evidence that the spouses had a falling out after Mary Brigit's birth. It's suggested that all physical intimacy between them stopped. Again, I use the word "suggested". Oh, the horror!:D

Evidence please and a reference.

Mairin1978

I never said that Pearse abused anyone sexually. Now, putting those ideas of blood sacrifice into children's heads is a different story, but I won't go into it.

There are letters in which Margaret expressed her hostility and disappointment with James. Also, it's odd that she did not have children after Mary Brigit. She was only 27 at the time.

JohnFalstaff

Bloody Pearse! Always the same arguments repeated and rehashed. I respect what you're trying to do CDfm, but Pearse has passed beyond pure history at this stage. At this remove 'Facts' count for as little as myth and as far as we are concerned the man and the myth are inseparable. No amount of facts will give us the truth behind the man.

For what it's worth I think both parties in this argument are partly right - I reckon Pearse held a candle for Eibhlin Nic Niocaill and, following her death, subsequently sublimated his desire into the cause of Ireland and the future generations that might 'renew the flame' so to speak. Moving his school to Rathfarnham was as much about engaging with the spirit of Robert Emmet as it was for practical reasons.

What I have a problem with is people writing Pearse off as one of the 'useful idiots'. I also think that it's very dangerous to try and comprehend the minds of men like Pearse from our modern standpoint.

I'm surprised more references haven't been made to Pearse's autobiographical fragment The Home Life of Patrick Pearse - lots of good information relating to this thread in there. The recent Life and After Life of P.H. Pearse, Roisin Higgins & Regina Ni Chollatain eds. also addresses much of the same material.

Mairin1978

John, I would be delighted to get a copy of "Home Life", but I just can't seem to find it anywhere! Is it out of print? There are parts of it cited in Moran's biography.

JohnFalstaff

The copy I read was from the National Library and I know there is a copy in the Kevin Street Library, but I don't know how readily available the book is in bookshops etc. It is quoted extensively in The Life and After Life of P.H. Pearse which I referenced above.

CDfm

Mairin1978 wrote: »

I never said that Pearse abused anyone sexually. Now, putting those ideas of blood sacrifice into children's heads is a different story, but I won't go into it.

Lots of countries made a virtue of the same thing and its not specific to Irish nationalists.

I have posted before that my grandfather was a volunteer in the rising and did not want his grandchildren to have those ideas.

Michael Collins also felt that blood sacrafice was a waste.

There are letters in which Margaret expressed her hostility and disappointment with James. Also, it's odd that she did not have children after Mary Brigit. She was only 27 at the time.

Maybe so -but lots of couples have fights. and make up etc.

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Bloody Pearse! Always the same arguments repeated and rehashed. I respect what you're trying to do CDfm, but Pearse has passed beyond pure history at this stage. At this remove 'Facts' count for as little as myth and as far as we are concerned the man and the myth are inseparable. No amount of facts will give us the truth behind the man.

But the facts give a completely different narative to his life

For what it's worth I think both parties in this argument are partly right - I reckon Pearse held a candle for Eibhlin Nic Niocaill and, following her death, subsequently sublimated his desire into the cause of Ireland and the future generations that might 'renew the flame' so to speak. Moving his school to Rathfarnham was as much about engaging with the spirit of Robert Emmet as it was for practical reasons.

Or was it simply because his attempts to raise finance to buy the building failed.

What I have a problem with is people writing Pearse off as one of the 'useful idiots'. I also think that it's very dangerous to try and comprehend the minds of men like Pearse from our modern standpoint.

+1

I'm surprised more references haven't been made to Pearse's autobiographical fragment The Home Life of Patrick Pearse - lots of good information relating to this thread in there. The recent Life and After Life of P.H. Pearse, Roisin Higgins & Regina Ni Chollatain eds. also addresses much of the same material.

I have quoted from it a few times his biographical writings a few times.

I am against the type of history that says -missing something then make it up & that is fiction.Thats not analysis its bull****.

We do not need speculation on Pearse if the material is not there.

Pearse scholars seem to be a very lazy bunch trading in innuendo and non-sequitors.

sensibleken

Morlar wrote: »

No offence but your assertions and suspicions seem to have no basis in fact whatsoever. I think they belong in the conspiracies forum. 'Some psychologists suggest' . . those have got to be among the 3 least convincing words in the english language. Along with 'not incompatible with'.

I got one, 'modern day druid'

CDfm

Something I would like to know about is the Pearse families English ancestry.

His father emigrated from Birmingham.

James Pearse died on a visit to his brother there in 1900.