Literature of the Gaelic Revival

BOOK REVIEWS Joshi's introduction and his chapter on Dunsany and Ireland are especially interesting and important, the former being a succinct overview of Dunsany's entire career and the latter being an estimate of his place in Irish literary history, and both should be reworked, polished, and published in a journal reaching a wider audience than this book, however attractively packaged and reasonably priced it is, is ever likely todo. Clinton K. Krauss ________________ Montpelier, Vermont Literature of the Gaelic Revival Philip O'Leary. The Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival, 1881-1921. University Park: Penn State University Press, 1994. 526 pp. Cloth $75.00 Paper $25.00 PHILIP O'LEARY'S Prose Literature of the Gaelic Revival is a work long needed by specialists and other serious readers of the 18801920 period. Since much 'English" literature in this transitional period is Irish, ELT readers, in particular, can benefit from O'Leary's tome. Some of that writing is also anti-English. In fact, revival of the Irish language fostered a nationalism which made possible the other "renaissance ." That connection is not adequately explained in snippets in the usual literary anthology, biography of Douglas Hyde, or history of the Gaelic League. Because of copious illustrations, sensible chapter divisions , and good index, O'Leary's volume goes a long way toward making an understanding possible. Until the twentieth century, it was assumed that the British had succeeded in stifling written use of the Irish language. Daniel Corkery*s Hidden IreL·nd, however, found this not to be the case, at least through the eighteenth century. O'Leary begins with the late nineteenth century and, using the documentary method of discussion, makes extensive use of newspapers, journals, letters, speeches, and books to cite passages which preach the use of the Irish language, practice it, or both. His first important date is October 1881 when Michael Logan, in Brooklyn, began publication of his bilingual periodical An Gaodhal (The Gael"). From that work and date, until the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 allowed the Dail to seize control of the country, plunge Ireland into civil war, and institutionalize the Irish language, O'Leary finds many successful attempts to foster its usage. While many agree use of Irish was necessary to have a nation, not many good writers could use it with any degree of effectiveness and some, such as Yeats and George Moore, could scarcely 275 ELT 39:2 1996 use it at all. Some (e.g., Padraic Pearse) used it to create a revolution and others (e.g., Douglas Hyde) emphasized it to create or recreate a culture. O'Leary traces the cross-currents and cross-purposes very well. Conflicts of interest and purpose were present from the beginning. Linguists wanted to protect the purity of the language and study each period in its own context. Folklorists simply wanted to collect the stories and poems, whether in Irish or English, and no matter the period they came from. Both of these scholarly groups were generally opposed by the Anglophiles of Trinity College, who felt the language was both dead and had no significant literature. Both linguists and Trinity scholars were opposed by the translators/popularizers—Lady Gregory, Standish Hayes O'Grady, Seamus McManus, and later writers such as James Stephens—whose works appeared in a sort of English. Future Irish president Douglas Hyde formed a bridge which tried to connect the warring factions, but Irish nationalists were not willing to accept anything less than a "true" Gaelic. Of this group, Padraic Pearse looms large. So, while various groups were trying to save Ireland from herself, they were disagreeing loudly with each other about how to do it. Gaels felt that the Abbey Theatre moved too slowly in helping create language usage. Some writers suggested that Anglo-Irish writing be translated into Gaelic so that students would have something good to read. Of course, no two groups could agree on which writers were good. Nationalist Gaels, such as Arthur Griffith and Padraic Pearse, branded Yeats a turncoat and belittled his efforts. Also Gaelic but more cosmopolitan, the historian P. S. 0*Hegarty, in London, defended Yeats and the idea of retelling Irish stories...