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

20 1 “The Sad Story of Our Mis­ er­ ies” Prot­ es­ tant Inter­ pre­ ta­ tions of the Re­ bel­ lion, c. 1641–c. 1840 John Gam­ ble was a doc­ tor and a na­ tive of Stra­ bane who had been ed­ u­ cated in Edin­ burgh and ­ served in the Brit­ ish army; he later set­ tled in Lon­ don and then, in the early ­ decades of the nine­ teenth cen­ tury, made a num­ ber of trips home. He wrote down his im­ pres­ sions of these trips and in doing so left a fleet­ ing­ record of a visit made in 1812 to an inn near Dun­ given run by a Pres­ by­ ter­ ian who had sworn to have but one drink a day, and that in the morn­ ing. Gam­ ble was ­ thereby de­ prived of a pros­ pec­ tive drink­ ing com­ pan­ ion after din­ ner, so in­ stead, to oc­ cupy his time, he ­ picked up a book that an­ other ­ lodger had left down: It was Sir ­ William ­ Temple’s ac­ count of the re­ bel­ lion of 1641. I car­ ried it to my room. Sir ­ William was a great states­ man, a pol­ ished gen­ tle­ man, and el­ e­ gant ­ scholar. Such is the char­ ac­ ter his­ to­ rians give him. We must not judge an au­ thor by his book, else I ­ should pro­ nounce him very un­ de­ serv­ ing of the ­ praise so lav­ ishly ­ bestowed on him. Of all the ac­ counts of the above un­ happy pe­ riod, his is the most par­ tial, the most ex­ ag­ ger­ ated, and the most ab­ surd. On re­ flec­ tion, he was him­ self ­ highly dis­ satis­ fied with the per­ for­ mance and would not suf­ fer it to pass ­ through a sec­ ond edi­ tion. But the mis­ chief was al­ ready done.1 Gam­ ble made one mis­ take: he at­ trib­ uted this book to the dip­ lo­ mat and ­ writer Sir ­ William Tem­ ple and in doing so ques­ tioned his il­ lus­ tri­ ous rep­ u­ ta­ tion. But it “The Sad Story of Our Miseries” 21 was not the work of Sir ­ William Tem­ ple; ­ rather, it had been writ­ ten by his­ father, and Gam­ ble was right not to under­ state its in­ flu­ ence. Sir John ­ Temple’s The Irish Re­ bel­ lion (1646) was prob­ ably the most fa­ mous—or in­ fa­ mous—de­ pic­ tion of the ­ events of 1641, a work that could still, in 1887, be sar­ cas­ ti­ cally de­ scribed as “an al­ most in­ fal­ lible wit­ ness ­ against Ca­ thol­ i­ cism.”2 Its no­ to­ ri­ ety over the cen­ tu­ ries ­ rested on its ­ status as a ca­ non­ i­ cal “Prot­ es­ tant” ac­ count of 1641.­ Temple’s work, based as it was on the more lurid of the tes­ ti­ mo­ nies taken from Prot­ es­ tant sur­ vi­ vors of the re­ bel­ lion, ­ painted 1641 as lit­ tle more than a vi­ cious sec­ tar­ ian mas­ sa­ cre. It also pro­ vided an inter­ pre­ ta­ tion of its or­ i­ gins that de­ picted it as both un­ jus­ tified and un­ ex­ pected, a judg­ ment that fur­ ther ­ damned those who had taken part in it. But ir­ re­ spec­ tive of the de­ bates that later ­ sprang up about its ­ events, there was no ques­ tion but that the out­ break of a re­ bel­ lion in Ire­ land on 23 Oc­ to­ ber 1641 was ­ largely un­ ex­ pected. So too were its leg­ a­ cies. Rep­ re­ sent­ ing a Re­ bel­ lion: Henry Jones, Sir John Tem­ ple, and the Con­ struc­ tion of a Prot­ es­ tant Par­ a­ digm Sir John Tem­ ple him­ self had been the mas­ ter of the rolls in the Dub­ lin ad­ min­ is­ tra­ tion in the early 1640s, and on 2 Sep­ tem­ ber 1641 he told one cor­ re­ spon­ dent that “this king­ dom gives noth­ ing worth your knowl­ edge.”3 But ­ within weeks of the out­ break of re­ bel­ lion in the fol­ low­ ing Oc­ to­ ber, the govern­ ment of which Tem­ ple was a part was re­ ceiv­ ing re­ ports that the in­ sur­ gents were mas­ sa...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.