In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Two : Faith or Fatherland? The Contested Symbolism of Irish Nationalism () Emmet Larkin was the first historian to draw attention to the significance of the Roman Catholic church in “the making of modern Ireland.” His massive multivolume history is now recognized as an essential starting point for future scholars.1 Thanks to his formidable researches, it is now necessary to place Paul Cullen, archbishop of Dublin, John MacHale, archbishop of Tuam, Thomas Croke, archbishop of Cashel, and W. J. Walsh, archbishop of Dublin, alongside the figures of Peel, O’Connell, Gladstone, Parnell, and Balfour. These bishops were able men of considerable political power with whom successive British governments had to deal in the second half of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth . Indeed, the Catholic hierarchy saw themselves as leaders of the Irish nation, as much as, if not more than, politicians like Parnell, Redmond, and Dillon. In making sense of Irish nationalism, it is necessary to follow Larkin’s lead and keep the Catholic hierarchy at the center of the picture. Larkin’s work may be said to have introduced a new dimension into the study of Irish nationalism. However, it is not the only source of innovation . We may mention in particular a new level of sophistication in the study of nationalism associated with the work of Eric Hobsbawm, Terence Ranger, Ernest Gellner, and many others.2 It is now possible to place Irish nationalism in a comparative context. For these scholars the main concern is uncovering the problematic aspects of the concept “nation.” In contrast nationalists, and nationalist historians, look upon their own nation and nationhood as in some sense “God-given” or “natural.” They see their national identity as resting upon“language”or“race”or“religion”or“territory” 81 on a primordial basis. For them such signs of national identity are not the accidental product of historical change but part of a deeper providential pattern. In contrast, the new generation of scholars use such terms as “the invention of tradition” or “an imagined community” as the key to understanding the phenomenon of nationalism. An article by Ashutosh Varshney,“Contested Meanings: India’s National Identity, Hindu Nationalism and the Politics of Anxiety” provides a good example of this approach.3 Varshney shows how a formerly dominant Indian secular nationalism, the creation of Gandhi and Nehru, is today being challenged by an increasingly powerful Hindu nationalism. Allowing for obvious differences of scale, there are illuminating parallels here with Ireland. Throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century there was continuous tension within Ireland between two images of the Irish nation, a secular image looking back to Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, and the French Revolution, and a religious image deriving from the experience of a persecuted people during the Reformation and the post-Reformation period. The situation was complicated further by the incorporation of Ireland within the United Kingdom in  by the Act of Union and by the later rise of a powerful “Orange” ethnic consciousness within the province of Ulster (the Irish equivalent of Kashmir or the Punjab). In the wake of new interpretations, historians and anthropologists have become increasingly aware of the ambiguities and tensions which lie at the heart of most, perhaps one should say all, nationalist movements. Since it is impossible to define “nation” in such a way as to make it immediately and self-evidently acceptable to all possible members of a specific nation, disputes inevitably arise as to what constitutes the essential signs of the nation. “Contested symbols” thus seem to form part of the histories of various nationalist movements, not least Irish nationalism. This essay is concerned with the commemoration of the centenary of O’Connell’s birth, which was celebrated over three days (– August) in Dublin during the summer of . As such it is clearly limited in scope. In my view, however, following Varshney’s lead, it illustrates long-lasting divisions among Irish political activists about the meaning of the “nation.” A struggle took place during the centenary celebrations of O’Connell’s birth about interpretation of a national symbol—in this case, the figure of Daniel O’Connell himself. The question at issue was whether O’Connell was to be seen primarily as a figure sponsoring Catholic emancipation or as an advocate of the repeal of the Union. What was at stake was the nature of Irish identity. Was it religious or secular? The symbolism of O’Connell’s 82 : Faith or Fatherland? The Contested...

Share