Search Results

This chapter details the beginning of the destruction of the Gaelic order in Ireland by military, legal, and economic means. Though there is little evidence of the widespread use of English in the countryside, it is already evident in this period that English was the language of towns and that it had important economic, bureaucratic, and political functions. The defeat of Catholic forces in the 1640s and again at the end of the period gives rise to angry lamentation by the Gaelic bards for the loss of traditional Gaelic culture and faith. The chapter also traces the emergence of both the native response to the new historical circumstances, including the formulation of a new mode of Irish national identity, and the colonial attacks on Gaelic historiography, language, and culture.

This chapter gives an of the beginnings of linguistic colonialism proper in Ireland under Henry VIII, and the consolidation and hardening of the policy under Elizabeth I and James I. Central to the strategy of the colonists was the attempt to subjugate Ireland militarily and culturally, including the conversion of the country to Protestantism. The varying practices of colonial enforcement are examined, ranging from Henry's gradualist reformism to the extreme measures enacted during Elizabeth's reign and that of James. Attention is drawn to the limited impact of linguistic colonialism on Gaelic culture before the defeat of the Gaelic chieftains in 1601, and the subsequent Flight of the Earls in 1607. Consideration is given to the attitudes and stereotypes of the colonizers and the native population as expressed in the English and Gaelic literature of the period.

Outlining the debates over the relative merits and demerits of the English and Gaelic languages in Ireland in the period of the Penal Code, this chapter traces a shifting historical narrative which matches developments on the ground. As English gradually but surely gained dominance in Irish public and civil life, and as Gaelic culture and tradition receded from public view if not everyday practice, there emerged a whole series of arguments about the proper language of education in the country. Not the least of these strands was that launched by Protestant antiquarians and their Catholic counterparts — for differing reasons — about the antiquity and integrity of the Irish nation. Towards the end of the period, there appears what can be recognized as the first elements of a form of linguistic nationalism that was to be so influential later in Irish history.

A number of factors distinguish the story of the Irish language in the twentieth century from that of preceding centuries. Chief among these was the creation in 1922 of a largely independent, self-governing state in the south, which promptly adopted a policy of strong support for the language. This chapter outlines the foundation, implementation, and modification of public policy in Ireland during the decades in question, and offers some assessment of the achievement. The state's approach differed markedly from that its forerunner. Certain measures by Britain had benefited Gaelic culture during the nineteenth century, and particularly in the final decades of British rule. The language became entrenched as one of the hallmarks of Irish nationalism. One hundred years after the early efforts at revival, Irish literature shows signs of life worthy of wholehearted celebration.

The Catholic Church and the State supported each other in their pursuit of their respective interests in schooling in Ireland. That was particularly so in relation to the secondary school curriculum. The interest of the Church was in maintaining an all-pervasive religious atmosphere justified by reference to its overt aim of using the schools as an instrument for enhancing ‘the salvation of souls’. Concurrently, it supported successive governments in the pronounced emphasis they placed on promoting the Irish language and Gaelic culture, including through the secondary schools. Further, on occasions when it perceived State initiatives in that domain over-zealous failure to have them implemented was due primarily to the Church having the upper hand in the partnership. At the same time, tension never spilled over into displays of public acrimony. A desire on the part of both institutions not to jeopardize the promotion of the intellectual and emotional development of students only in a very narrow sense served to maintain harmony, as it facilitated the deeper interest of both institutions in maintaining their power among the majority of the population.