Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Padraig Pearse

12467

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    I think the power of the printed word it in the context of that time is a relevant factor. There was no other mass media. If you look back at this period of Irish history it is clear how much of Independence era Ireland is encapsulated and remembered through the imagery and iconography of the printing press. Wanted posters, Election posters, Pro & Anti Treaty Propaganda posters, political newspapers, printed sheets and so on. It's worth remembering one of the first acts of the new govt inside the GPO during the Rising was to print the 'Irish War News' (edited by Pearse).

    Whether or not books of poems were republished (which I believe they were in the aftermath of the executions) is not the most accurate way of measuring the power and influence of Pearse in my opinion.

    Many accounts at that time and in the aftermath bear this (the esteem in which Pearse was held and the influence he had) out. In later years, (particularly during the period of the 1966 commemorations when a plethora of newspapers, journals and other publications devoted much, if not all, of their column space to this period) Pearse remained listed as a powerful influence. For example see the 1940 or 1966 Cappuchin Annual which had a great amount of Rising commemorative articles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Of course, and those parts are self evident.

    I am trying to gauge his influence in the direct aftermath.

    My grandfather had very little time for the leaders of the rising and thought it a waste. Similar views to Collins, Hobson etc

    So it was a military failure -it turned into a political success .

    In that way , I am trying to gauge how Pearse figured in this and the use of his story myth or legend on subsequent events.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    I am trying to gauge his influence in the direct aftermath.

    As I see it 'the aftermath' was that those involved in 1916 were also involved in the Irish War of Independence and many of them were then also involved in the Irish Civil war.

    How can you seperate what influence Pearse had on those same men during his lifetime in the pre-Rising days and after his death (by virtue of his legacy and writings) during the War of Independence?

    Many of the same people had been influenced by him but in some ways would have left him behind to a degree as the country had descended into a War of Independence which differed significantly from the Ireland of Pearses lifetime.

    He had a significant influence during his lifetime and after his death he was one of many martyrs for Ireland (as were all the others executed). I would say that in death someone like Terence MacSwiney had a far greater influence than during his (MacSwiney's) life. Pearse's influence on the other hand is harder to guage pre and post death. He was prominent and influential before his death thanks to his speeches and words etc The same words lived on to influence others and the act of his death, along with the others also proved an inspiration to many.
    CDfm wrote: »
    My grandfather had very little time for the leaders of the rising and thought it a waste. Similar views to Collins, Hobson etc

    That is neither here nor there. Collins had a lot of time for many of the leaders of the rising, particularly Connolly and De Valera, though I believe he differed from Pearse in many aspects the fact to remember is that Pearse was in a higher position than Collins was (at that time). So the issues and problems Pearse dealt with in 1915/1916 in the pre-rising era are greatly different to those dealt with by Collins when he was in a comparably senior position (after Frongoch and in the lead up to and early days of the Irish War of Independence).

    The political landscape and the mood of the country had changed completely - due to the work of people like Pearse.

    Whether or not Collins and Pearse agreed on everything is neither here nor there. They were different men for different times and working for a common goal in their own way in their own time.
    CDfm wrote: »
    So it was a military failure -it turned into a political success .

    In that way , I am trying to gauge how Pearse figured in this and the use of his story myth or legend on subsequent events.

    Could I ask, do you look at all the executed leaders of 1916 in terms of their 'story myth or legend' ? How about talking about them as men who were leaders and who had respect and the power to influence and motivate others ? I don't see how this should be described as 'myth & legend', it is historical fact (or historical interpretation) of very prominent political/military/revolutionary figures.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Just in terms of the paedophile accusation. I have read little lad of the tricks and it certainly sounds really dodgy. What is the arguement that this isnt about kissing little boys?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Just in terms of the paedophile accusation. I have read little lad of the tricks and it certainly sounds really dodgy. What is the arguement that this isnt about kissing little boys?

    Pretty sure that slur has been addressed and answered 50 times at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Morlar wrote: »
    Pretty sure that slur has been addressed and answered 50 times at this stage.

    any idea where? Ive searched through this forum without coming accross anything uselfull. Most of what Ive read online seems over defensive


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    any idea where? Ive searched through this forum without coming accross anything uselfull. Most of what Ive read online seems over defensive

    Not wanting to take the thread on a diversionary offshoot (on the basis of a groundless slur) but, do you have any examples where you read on this subject which were 'over defensive' ?

    I suppose in fairness when an accusation of that severity is levelled against someone who is dead, and against whom there is not a single shred of actual, credible evidence of wrongdoing - then it is bound to provoke a reaction which is defensive.

    However I am curious to see which ones you are referreing to so I can judge for myself whether or not what you see as defensiveness affects their credibility in any way.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    As I see it 'the aftermath' was that those involved in 1916 were also involved in the Irish War of Independence and many of them were then also involved in the Irish Civil war.

    thats reasonable
    How can you seperate what influence Pearse had on those same men during his lifetime in the pre-Rising days and after his death (by virtue of his legacy and writings) during the War of Independence?

    Many of the same people had been influenced by him but in some ways would have left him behind to a degree as the country had descended into a War of Independence which differed significantly from the Ireland of Pearses lifetime.

    my grandfather was from Cork and was not influenced by him
    Pearse was in a higher position than Collins was (at that time). So the issues and problems Pearse dealt with in 1915/1916 in the pre-rising era are greatly different to those dealt with by Collins when he was in a comparably senior position (after Frongoch and in the lead up to and early days of the Irish War of Independence).

    I suppose it is debatable what power and control Pearse had over the military situation -nonetheless - he had significant political significance.

    Whether or not Collins and Pearse agreed on everything is neither here nor there. They were different men for different times and working for a common goal in their own way in their own time.

    Collins was not impressed by Pearse.

    A question therefore is for me how much of what came later depended on Pearse "playing" the revolutionary leaders role. ( I do not know how to phrase this)

    The surrender pic is iconic and it looks like a surrender pic.

    Pearses agreed speach at his court-martial.

    Both of these were done in a way to be media friendly. There is no doubt in my mind he deliberately stage managed the event. The photo is more than coincidence.

    I read of Casement that he found it incredulous that he was to be hanged like a "boy" (colonial native) .

    Pearse was a barrister and Willie had been to college. So really "they" were "one of us".

    The jury were not executing "boys"-they were executing their peers.

    Could I ask, do you look at all the executed leaders of 1916 in terms of their 'story myth or legend' ? How about talking about them as men who were leaders and who had respect and the power to influence and motivate others ? I don't see how this should be described as 'myth & legend', it is historical fact (or historical interpretation) of very prominent political/military/revolutionary figures.

    You can , of course.

    I live in Dublin but am not from here, I have an interest in the "lore" part and when I asked the question about stonework it was well a nice Saturday afternoon could be spent looking at Pearse Family work.

    So I did a search on architecture sites and found the half brother & sister & also that the altar and railings in my hometown's parish church were by James Pearse. They are particularly fine and superior to the building that surrounds them.

    (Dominick Behan - was friendly with my Dad for a while and he used to do shopfront restoration.)So I have no problem with placing Willie Pearse & James Pearse as Artists rather than artisans.

    So his background as a man was different to what I was taught.

    The Dudley Edwards thing, well, if I was looking for a Pearse bio his family was a huge gap in her theory so why should I believe her on her Eveleen Nicholls interpretation.


    So I looked for things I could relate to. Coat-pegging with facts.

    I can understand his photo staging of his surrender in the context of JFK's use of press photo's 40 years later. He had been an editor and would have been at home with print media.

    I think the man is more important than the myth.

    Did you know that the printer who printed the Proclamation was Brady - and I just wonder were they related . His mother was Brady. So how extended family orientated was he ?

    http://typefoundry.blogspot.com/2010/01/image-of-proclamation-of-irish-republic.html

    The printed Proclamation was important to him. It was a last minute job .

    Now I do not intend to go thru all or any other of the leaders like this at all & it was not my intention to look at Pearse - only the OP asked the question.

    I think I have been very fair. And I hope I have given the OP enough to be able to cast a critical eye over whatever biography he chooses - but not to accept everything he reads.

    Anyway Morlar, did you find out anything new about Pearse from what I dredged up ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Morlar wrote: »
    Not wanting to take the thread on a diversionary offshoot (on the basis of a groundless slur) but, do you have any examples where you read on this subject which were 'over defensive' ?

    I suppose in fairness when an accusation of that severity is levelled against someone who is dead, and against whom there is not a single shred of actual, credible evidence of wrongdoing - then it is bound to provoke a reaction which is defensive.

    However I am curious to see which ones you are referreing to so I can judge for myself whether or not what you see as defensiveness affects their credibility in any way.

    there were a few on politics.ie
    http://www.politics.ie/history/78541-paedo-no-what-pearse-poem-about-if-not-kissing-wee-boys.html

    and a few another couple of places I cant retrace.

    They quickly descend into a 'thats a slur, he died for ireland' and back and forth sniping without providing any literary criticism from either side as to theories of any alternative meanings. Im not saying he was a child abuser, Im aware no allegations were levied against him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    there were a few on politics.ie
    http://www.politics.ie/history/78541-paedo-no-what-pearse-poem-about-if-not-kissing-wee-boys.html

    and a few another couple of places I cant retrace.

    They quickly descend into a 'thats a slur, he died for ireland' and back and forth sniping without providing any literary criticism from either side as to theories of any alternative meanings. Im not saying he was a child abuser, Im aware no allegations were levied against him.

    That poster begins with the statement 'we all know pearse was a peadarast and fancies young boys' is that supposed to be some sort of source? We expect better in this history forum tbh. I have never read anything by a serious historian suggesting that he had paedophilic tendencies and tbh I think there has been an incredible amount of slander aimed at him, one critic going as far as to suggest necrophiliac tendencies. At this stage he has been accused of almost every sexual deviancy you can think of except perhaps beastiality, but you never know maybe someone is working on a phd involving this. Anyways long story short put up a link to an actual historian or critic with credentials that backs up your argument or stop posting on this topic.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    CDfm wrote: »
    The surrender pic is iconic and it looks like a surrender pic.

    Pearses agreed speach at his court-martial.

    Both of these were done in a way to be media friendly. There is no doubt in my mind he deliberately stage managed the event. The photo is more than coincidence.

    That's a bit of a rambling reply if you don't mind me saying so.

    On the subject of the surrender photo, I don't place as much relevance in this as you do.

    The way I look at it is this :

    a)

    That Pearse as leader wanted (presumably in accordance with his fellow rebels) to present himself (and through him - all of the men he represented) in a dignified manner, I don't doubt. I can't remember any information on the logistics of that photo, whether he knew in advance he would be photographed at that moment, from what angle and so on. So how much this (photo) influenced the literal manner of the 'surrender act' - I am not sure.

    b)

    I would not rate the relevance of that single, isolated photo too highly against the totality of 1916 as you seem to.

    c)

    In the physical condition they were likely to be in, of frayed nerves / possible shock and duress from being under fire & losing comrades, in that sort of a hopeless, fearful military situation - I would not have expected very much from a non military person. However from all accounts he seems to have done well under those circumstances. There is an element here to consider and that is these rebels were in uncharted territory and they were for most part not professional soldiers being shopkeepers, newspaper boys, carpenters, stonemasons and so on.

    d)

    Having said all of that it would be credible if his thoughts had turned to the next stage and to how this event would play out in the world's media, particularly the American media and public. They knew before starting they could not militarily defeat the british empire in it's backyard. . . .perhaps, the organisers had an eye to the global poliitical stage throughout the stages of the planning of the Rising ?

    So in that sense maybe presenting a unified & dignified front throughout :
    - the organising and co-ordination of the surrender around Dublin,
    - the surrender act itself (Pearse photo and Markievicz kissing the pistol)
    -and throughout the subsequent military hearings and executions,
    It seems possible that these factors (and how to behave throughout them) were considered long in advance.

    Even so I am not sure how this single aspect (photograph) is of the level of relevance you seem to think it was.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    That poster begins with the statement 'we all know pearse was a peadarast and fancies young boys' is that supposed to be some sort of source? We expect better in this history forum tbh. I have never read anything by a serious historian suggesting that he had paedophilic tendencies and tbh I think there has been an incredible amount of slander aimed at him, one critic going as far as to suggest necrophiliac tendencies. At this stage he has been accused of almost every sexual deviancy you can think of except perhaps beastiality, but you never know maybe someone is working on a phd involving this. Anyways long story short put up a link to an actual historian or critic with credentials that backs up your argument or stop posting on this topic.

    O for god sake. I already said this not my arguement. I was not making an arguement, I was asking a question, the link was an example of how irrational the topic quickly descends to. This is exactly the defensiveness I was talking about. I know know accusations were levelled against him....never mind. the search for calm discussion continues


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    This is a calm discussion. And calm discussion starts with sources, when you're discussing history at least. Instead of looking at that p.ie thread and going what a nut you seem to think that because people deny something that has no evidence means we collectively have something to hide or are overly defensive about? As I said Pearse has been accused of every sort of sexual deviancy and its just a tired argument that has little or no evidence provided for it, so I'm sorry if I'm overly defensive in requiring sources but I feel its warranted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    This is a calm discussion. And calm discussion starts with sources, when you're discussing history at least. Instead of looking at that p.ie thread and going what a nut you seem to think that because people deny something that has no evidence means we collectively have something to hide or are overly defensive about? As I said Pearse has been accused of every sort of sexual deviancy and its just a tired argument that has little or no evidence provided for it, so I'm sorry if I'm overly defensive in requiring sources but I feel its warranted.

    again. Morlar asked what examples i had for people flying off the handle when people bring up the subject. that was what the link showed. It was not a source for any arguement so Im not sure what you were getting at. I have already said I do not think he was a paedophile, its a few posts up!

    My only source is the poem followed by my question. No arguement, a question


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Morlar wrote: »
    That's a bit of a rambling reply if you don't mind me saying so.

    On the subject of the surrender photo, I don't place as much relevance in this as you do.

    thats ok - I like me pictures and tabloids.:)

    It works for me because the significance significance of the Rising was not immediately apparent . I do wonder how much new media such Pathe Cinema News diseminated thru Ireland and Britain added to it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    When was he dictator of Ireland so?

    Ah come on, that is pure pedantry. My point was that the fenian movement and the IRB generally was dictatorial in nature (Shadowy military council meetings etc.) Stevens was known to be dictatorial and stifling of dissent in his leadership, remarked upon by many at the time and after, including a Republican historian who wrote his biography (Desmond Ryan)

    There is little reason to believe that a Fenian Republic in the late 19th century would have installed a parliamentary democracy, hence the assumption that they were democrats is profoundly flawed and quite lazy to boot. Robert Mugabe maintains he is a democrat. When he led the resistance against white minority rule in Rhodesia he claimed he would bring a democratic revolution. We cannot take people and organisations merely on the flowery language they print; that is simly ahistorical.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Denerick wrote: »
    Ah come on, that is pure pedantry. My point was that the fenian movement and the IRB generally was dictatorial in nature (Shadowy military council meetings etc.) Stevens was known to be dictatorial and stifling of dissent in his leadership, remarked upon by many at the time and after, including a Republican historian who wrote his biography (Desmond Ryan)

    There is little reason to believe that a Fenian Republic in the late 19th century would have installed a parliamentary democracy, hence the assumption that they were democrats is profoundly flawed and quite lazy to boot. Robert Mugabe maintains he is a democrat. When he led the resistance against white minority rule in Rhodesia he claimed he would bring a democratic revolution. We cannot take people and organisations merely on the flowery language they print; that is simly ahistorical.

    Its not pedantry, you're making stuff up and you haven't a shred of evidence to support your position. When James Stephens becomes dictator of Ireland then you might have a point. Until then all the evidence of their ideology, of the history of Irish republicanism, etc, etc, shows that they were democratic in nature. Suggesting that because they met in secret means they were dictatorial in nature is amazing facile, they were an illegal secret society dedicated to undermining the status quo, in what state in Europe at that time was such a group allowed meet in public?
    Analogies and references to African dictators are not evidence btw. You would be hounded out of a history conference if you tried to make these sort of claims if this is the height of your evidence.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Its not pedantry, you're making stuff up and you haven't a shred of evidence to support your position. When James Stephens becomes dictator of Ireland then you might have a point. Until then all the evidence of their ideology, of the history of Irish republicanism, etc, etc, shows that they were democratic in nature. Suggesting that because they met in secret means they were dictatorial in nature is amazing facile, they were an illegal secret society dedicated to undermining the status quo, in what state in Europe at that time was such a group allowed meet in public?
    Analogies and references to African dictators are not evidence btw. You would be hounded out of a history conference if you tried to make these sort of claims if this is the height of your evidence.

    What am I making up? Do you know anything about James Stevens? Seriously, because I think anyone with even a passing knowledge of his leadership of the IRB would not be amazed by what I'm saying. I'm clearly wasting my time here with you.

    The analogy was simply to draw attention to the fact that assuming mere words written on paper are canon, while assuming mere tendancies, written in stone, are irrelevant... is quite stupid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Denerick wrote: »
    What am I making up? Do you know anything about James Stevens? Seriously, because I think anyone with even a passing knowledge of his leadership of the IRB would not be amazed by what I'm saying. I'm clearly wasting my time here with you.

    The analogy was simply to draw attention to the fact that assuming mere words written on paper are canon, while assuming mere tendancies, written in stone, are irrelevant... is quite stupid.

    Here's a novel idea, instead of making up pretend arguments to insult me, how about you create arguments based on historical fact rather than heresay? That is the point of history as a discipline after all. Once you uncover the evidence of James StePHens as dictator of Ireland I'll be all ears, until then you are just making up stuff based on random references to a different century and different continents.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    Here's a novel idea, instead of making up pretend arguments to insult me, how about you create arguments based on historical fact rather than heresay? That is the point of history as a discipline after all. Once you uncover the evidence of James StePHens as dictator of Ireland I'll be all ears, until then you are just making up stuff based on random references to a different century and different continents.

    Many years from now I'm sure, you will stumble across a fellow called James Stevens (I'm convinced you didn't know he existed hithertoo) You will read a chapter in Desmond Ryan's book on the man (HINT, the chapter title contains the word Dictator) You may also stumble across a few choice phrases by John Devoy in various publications in his newspaper, as well as by Richard Pigott in editorials in Flag of Ireland, The Shamrock, and United Irishman.. and you might come to realise just how stifling and petty (Never mind pedantic, which sums up your narrow worldview) your interpretation of the discipline of history is.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,488 ✭✭✭Denerick


    **** it, ban me from this forum. I've had enough of this shíte. Not for the first time you have proven yourself to be a complete and utter dullard, the type of fellow who gives history (As in, historians) a bad name. What are you? An analyst or a chronicler? David Hume is having a right old laugh at you in his grave. Silly, silly man.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Regardless, its still James StePHens that you are referring to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Here's a novel idea, instead of making up pretend arguments to insult me, how about you create arguments based on historical fact rather than heresay? That is the point of history as a discipline after all. Once you uncover the evidence of James StePHens as dictator of Ireland I'll be all ears, until then you are just making up stuff based on random references to a different century and different continents.
    I'm afraid Brian that Denerick bases his arguments on his opinion, as he believes his opinion is sacrosanct over anyone else's opinion or facts.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Not everyone agreed with Pearse. You just have to look.

    For example , James Joyce enrolled in an Irish Language Course given by Pearse and dropped out when Joyce dissed English apparently.

    Joyce was didainful of "Fake Celticism" & “all the established versions of cultural nationalism”

    Joyce saw Ireland’s past as a roadblock to progress
    Joyce was on the opposite side of the spectrum; he saw the Celtic revival as a sham and did not align himself with the likes of Yeats and Synge. Interestingly, Joyce actually attempted to learn the Irish language himself but did not complete the task. He enrolled in a class taught by Padraig Pearse[2] and, after hearing Pearse belittle English as a language, Joyce dropped out (Golway 213). Joyce and Yeats both felt it was important for the Irish to assemble a clearer sense of identity, but disagreed on how to do it: “What Parnell had tried to do politically, with the help of the Fenians, Joyce envisaged himself as doing in art, with the very minor help of shadowy forerunners like James Clarence Mangan and in despite of the fake Celticism of W. B. Yeats, Synge and company” (Deane xxxv). “Fake Celticism” is a scathing indictment to be sure and this denunciation returns to politics. Joyce shunned “all the established versions of cultural nationalism” and thus it is no wonder he dismissed Yeats as reflecting something false (Deane xix). To Joyce, Yeats echoed the type of intense patriotism he wanted to escape. Stephen Dedalus’ chums and schoolmates parrot republican rhetoric back and forth to one another day after day and he tires of hearing the constant squabbling. Correspondingly, Joyce wanted to see the Irish define their identity as more than an oppressed people fighting for independence.

    http://sarasmichaelcollinssite.com/mcessay1.htm

    So the Ireland of Pearse was not the Ireland of Joyce.


  • Registered Users Posts: 363 ✭✭vinpaul


    Hi CDfm
    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. Well done in your efforts
    Most interesting.
    My Great-grandfather was Alfred Ignatius Mc Gloughlin. He married Emily Pearse daughter of James Pearse and Susanna (Emily) Fox.
    Alfred Ignatius was a brother of John and Charles Mc Gloughlin who ran an Art Metalwork Foundry (J & C McGloughlin) in Brunswick Street. They were very involved in Church work at the turn of the century afterwards. Their name can be seen on many church gates around the country.
    As you stated the marriage of Alfred and Emily Pearse did not last due to infidelity.
    Alfred Ignatius left for the United States early in 1900. It appears that the "scandal" at the time was unacceptable to his brothers and perhaps other people as well.

    The 3 children, 2 girls and a boy were reared in Dublin. The Census from 1901 shows the 2 girls in St Joseph's Orphanage in Mountjoy Street and their brother Alfred Vincent in a boarding school in The Monastery, Clondalkin.

    Alfred is listed as Uilfrid Mac Lochlainn living with Padraic Mac Piarais and family in Haroldsgrange on the 1911 census return.

    He became involved with the Nationaist Movement and was in Howth when guns were brought ashore in 1914. He was ill in 1916 and was excused from an active role in the Easter Rising. After 1916 he was involved with the War of Independence later the civil war. He died in 1932 leaving a widow and 7 young children. He was my grandfather. If I can find any more relevant information I will post.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Hi Vinpaul

    Thanks - I am glad you like it.

    The extended Pearse family were a bit more rounded than historians would have us believe and both Pearse brothers were close to their nephew Alfred Mc Gloughlin & their half sister (& brother).

    I think I have given Ruth Dudley Edwards a run for her money .:)

    It would be nice to see some more biographical detail on Alfred that is publically available.

    CD


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not everyone agreed with Pearse. You just have to look.

    For example , James Joyce enrolled in an Irish Language Course given by Pearse and dropped out when Joyce dissed English apparently.

    Joyce was didainful of "Fake Celticism" & “all the established versions of cultural nationalism”



    So the Ireland of Pearse was not the Ireland of Joyce.

    I can't help but add that the Ireland of Joyce is a mystery to all - including himself. Joyce - for all that he was clearly a genius, and I greatly admire Ulysses - was an emotional roller coaster with a very complex attitude to Ireland. He went to the Irish language classes at the suggestion of his friend George Clancy - later Mayor of Limerick and murdered by the Black and Tans. Joyce became upset at how Pearse taught Irish and Pearse's suggestion that English was a less aesthetic language, so he stopped going to the classes.

    Joyce didn't agree with the contrived aspects of the "Celtic Revival" but he was not against an Irish Ireland either. He just defined it differently. Joyce gave a laudatory talk on the nationalist poetry of James Clarence Mangan and the contribution he made to Irish literature. And Joyce was a nationalist in many other ways - he was delighted when the Irish refused conscription to the Great War - he said "Erin go Bragh" - and predicted that Georgie [his son] and he would one day go to Ireland and wear shamrocks in an independent Ireland. His brother Stanislaus Joyce wrote of James that he was against the British presence in Ireland.

    Joyce's main problem with Ireland stemmed from the crushing defeat of Parnell - and the way the Irish turned on him. He saw Irish self-hated as being at the root of many of Ireland's problems.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I can't help but add that the Ireland of Joyce is a mystery to all - including himself. Joyce - for all that he was clearly a genius, and I greatly admire Ulysses - was an emotional roller coaster with a very complex attitude to Ireland.

    Joyce - soft porn masquerading as high class literature. :)

    Pearse probably hammed it up a bit at those courses & there is a whole genre of Irish writting out there that I do not like from this era. No doubt the magazine " an Claidheamh Soluis" did exceptionally well when he was editor.

    Does anyone know what the vibe was like at his Irish Courses and if Pearse was a popular teacher.

    Was there an Irish classes /Conragh na Gaelige scene ?

    Would Pearse drink a pint ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    CDfm wrote: »
    Joyce - soft porn masquerading as high class literature. :)

    Ah CDfm that brings back memories of the old songs -

    "Good writers who once knew far better words
    Now only use four letter words
    Writing prose -
    Anything goes"
    :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 874 ✭✭✭JohnFalstaff


    CDfm wrote: »
    Joyce - soft porn masquerading as high class literature. :)

    Does anyone know what the vibe was like at his Irish Courses and if Pearse was a popular teacher.

    Was there an Irish classes /Conragh na Gaelige scene ?

    Would Pearse drink a pint ?

    Many of the students at St. Enda's praised Pearse as an exceptional teacher but I can't remember reading any accounts of what his Conradh na Gaeilge classes were like.

    There was definitely a Conradh na Gaeilge scene though - in her memoir All in the Blood, Geraldine Plunkett writes about how the Conradh was one of the main social outlets for the young people she knew in the early 1900's and that Ceilis and trips down the country to the Gaeltacht were frequently organised. She recalls her mother giving out about the calibre of person that attended these gatherings and then goes on to say that many of these people wound up running the country in a few years time!

    It was also through the Conradh that many of those who would go on to play prominent roles in the Easter Rising first became involved with the Republican movement.

    As far as Pearse drinking a pint... I think I once heard that he didn't drink, smoke or play organised sports - I can't remember where I heard that so it may only be hearsay, but it does fit with the impression I have of the man.


Advertisement