The relationship of Irish literature to Irish
politics under review in this chapter offers both paradox and symmetry.
The paradox lies in the fact that the Anglo-Irish literary revival,
which saw itself at first as an alternative to, or even a denial
of, politics, helped to foster a new separatist political tradition.
The symmetry will be found in the fact that although the writers
disillusionment with political gave way temporarily to a celebration
of revolution
the setting-up of the Irish Free State soon
led to a new disillusionment. (p.356.)
Of the 1916 leaders: The bulk of their poetry
consists of personal lyrics and religious or philosophical meditations.
(idem.); Mercier points out the response to the plot of The Kings
Threshold, in which the poet starves himself to death on a point
of honour: the reviewers thought it basically improbable that
any man would continue his fast to death, no matter how great the
injustice he had suffered [citing thereafter Republican hungerstrikers
incl. Terence MacSwiney, the best remembered. [q.p.]
There is a tendency to imagine the Anglo-Irish
literary revival emerging full grown from the head of Yeats, as
Pallas Athene sprang from the head of Zeus. The intellectual history
of Dublin has yet to be written, so that we fail to realise how
vigorous the official culture of the capital in fact was. Maurice
Craigs Dublin, 1660-1860 (1952), the nearest thing
to such a history, ends too soon for our purpose. Possessing two
universities and such old established cultural institutions as the
Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Dublin Society, Dublin could rival
any provincial city in the British Isles, Edinburgh included, in
its literary culture. The anthology Echoes from Kottobos
(1906) shows how skilful Trinity men could be in pastiche of Tennyson,
Browning, Swinburne, and even Whitman. [
; cites societies
and clubs incl. Dublin Hermetic Society, and Contemporary Club].
The National Literary Society, at its founding in 1892, was unique
only in its special emphasis on literature. (p.360)
The failure to found a magazine may have
arisen partly from the feeling that a purely literary magazine could
not survive in Ireland. (p.360.) The literary revival
was never destined to have a distinguished periodical exclusively
identified with it. (p.361.)
In Thomas Flanagans chapter [Literature
in English, 1810-91; supra], Emily Lawless and Canon Sheehan were
seen to embody two divisive tendencies, which might between them
have destroyed Anglo-Irish literature.
Yet instead
of splitting into two camps, protestant and catholic, Anglo-Irish
literature entered its golden age (roughly 1899-1939) during which
members of both communities joined in a united, if not always harmonious,
outpouring of creativity. [
] There are two main reasons by
the Lawless-Sheehan split did not continue: first, the attempt to
separate politics from literature already discussed; secondly the
strong tendency among protestant writers to adopt Sheehans
position by celebrating the Irish countryman. (p.364.)
The Anglo-Irish literary revival can reasonably
be thought of as continuous with the Gaelic revival, for Yeats and
his followers were trying to revive an reinterpret in English the
whole culture of Gaelic Ireland. Most immediately attractive to
Yeats, an essentially romantic poet, were the pre-Christian myths
and legends. (p.364.)
Love and respect for a tradition beget love
and respect for the carriers of that tradition. Earlier Anglo-Irish
literature had tended to patronise the Irish countryman
It
would be hard to find a literary work before Synges Riders
to the Sea that is totally free of patronising and presents
Irish country people as genuinely tragic figures. Once Synge had
done this, writers from a catholic background did it too [
/]. Anglo-Irish literature thus ceased to be colonial. [cites Daniel
Corkery on colonial literature and normality]; Technically,
what marks the break with colonial literature is the suppression
of a mediated character. This character may be a colonist who has
lived many years in Ireland, like [like the RM in Somerville and
Ross], or a native of Ireland [Levers first-person heroes]
He is a raisonner, a spokesman for the author, and
very useful as such. In Synges peasant plays we find no such
character: this may be one reason why The Playboy [
&c.] provoked such a hostile response in its first audience.
Even a very sophisticated playgoer of the time, being accustomed
to Ibsens use of the raisonneur, might find himself
baffled: what attitude ought he to adopt to Christys apparent
murder of his father, or to the character in the play [
]?
Much writing about the working class everywhere is colonial too;
Caseys tenement plays, however, lack a raisonneur and
are in consequence the least patronising plays of their kind [366]
in the world. / More immediately striking
is another significant
technical innovation: the attempt that ran its course within our
period, to create an Irish-English literary language
out of Irish folk speech. It began almost accidentally
;
(p.367.) naturally most appropriate to peasant plays
(idem.)
All that we have said up to now about the
choice of subject-matter and technique by the revival writers can
be summed up on one sentence: they were writing, to the best of
their ability, for an Irish audience. (p.368.)
ways in which the founders of the revival,
all protestants, failed to attune themselves to the catholics in
their audience; [/] Such problems will always occur
when members of one class consciously attempt to create literature
for members of another.; Yet if the revival writers
had not taken the essential first step of addressing an Irish audience,
that audience might have taken much longer to learn how to express
itself to itself (p.368.)
In fact apart from Maria Edgeworth and the
de Veres, no serious creative writer whose work was complete by
1891 could be described as a member of the gentry.; Indeed,
to the extent that the revival was truly Anglo-Irish, it can be
seen as an attempt, whether conscious or unconscious, to substitute
cultural leadership for the political and economic leadership that
was slipping from the gentrys grasp. (p.369); [//] To
be a member, especially a not too prosperous member, of the catholic
community surely helped to make writers aware of discrimination
and hardship not only in their own lives but in the lives of less
fortunate members of their church [...] Realism of a socially conscious
type therefore came naturally to writers from these groups
[incl. Northern protestants] (p.371.)
the point at which literature and society
impinge most sharply on one another was necessarily the theatre,
where the literary movement confronted its audience in all too,
too solid flesh. (p.372.)
In the years 1912-16 poetry and politics
came closer together in Ireland than they had since the seventeenth
century. Poets died for their country as none had died since Pierce
Ferriter in 1653 (p.375.)
We all know something of the difficulty Joyce
had in getting Ulysses accepted anywhere in the English-speaking
world. It would be natural to assume that the book was banned in
the Irish Free State [
] but in fact it never was [
].
Nothing of Joyces was ever openly banned in Ireland, except,
inexplicably, the posthumous Stephen Hero (1994) [
&c.] (p.383.)
On Finnegans Wake: many of the rhythms
of this great comic poem are also strongly Irish, so much so that
a critic has written of Joyces Synge-song. Meanwhile,
as Joyce characteristically swam against the stream, back to the
source of the revival, Irish fiction, both in the short story and
the novel, was moving towards the scrupulous realism evident in
his early work. (END; p.384.)
Note that Mercier calls both Edward Martyns
The Heather Field and Moores Grania fine plays
(pp.363, 365).