Beyond the Pale; English Perceptions of the Irish

Negative English attitudes towards the Irish date as far back as the reign of Henry II. One could do no better here than examine the things written by the chronicler Gerald of Wales, who visited the island in the company of Prince John. As a result of this he wrote Topographia Hibernia (Topography of Ireland) and Expugnatio Hibernica (Conquest of Ireland), both of which remaind in circulation for centuries afterwards. Ireland, in his view, was rich; but the Irish were backwards and lazy;

They use their fields mostly for pasture. Little is cultivated and even less is sown. The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to liesure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on their livelihhod for animals and they live like animals.

Gerald was not atypical; for one can find similar views in the writings of William of Malmesbury and William of Newburgh. When it comes to Irish marital and sexual customs Gerald is even more biting, "This is a filthy people, wallowing in vice. They indulge in incest, for example in marrying-or rather debauching-the wives of their dead brothers."

Even earlier than this Archbishop Anselm accused the Irish of 'wife swapping', "...exchanging their wives as freely as other men exchange their horses." You will find these views echoed centuries later in the words of Sir Henry Sidney, twice Lord Deputy during the reign of Elizabeth I, and in those of Edmund Tremayne, his secretary. In Tremayne's view the Irish "commit whoredom, hold no wedlock, ravish, steal and commit all abomination without scruple of conscience." In A View of the Present State of Ireland, published in 1596, Edmund Spencer wrote "They are all papists by profession but in the same so blindingly and brutishly informed that you would rather think them atheists or infidels."


This vision of the barbarous Irish, largely born out of a form of imperialist condescension, made its way into Laudabiliter, one of the most infamous documents in all of Irish History, by which Adrian IV, the only English Pope, granted Ireland to Henry II, "...to the end that the foul customs of that country may be abolished and the barbarous nation, Christian in name only, may through your care assume the beauty of good morals."


All and every method was to be used in this 'civilizing mission' over time. In 1305 when Piers Bermingham cut off the heads of thirty members of the O'Connor clan and sent them to Dublin he was awarded with a financial bonus. His action was also celebrated in verse. In 1317 one Irish chronicler was of the view that it was just as easy for an Englishman to kill an Irishman as he would a dog. Later when the English control of Ireland shrunk back for a time to The Pale around Dublin, all beyond was considered as given over to savagery, hence the expression 'Beyond the Pale'.


What we see here is the same thing that appears time and again, throughout the whole world, and over all time: it begins when an entire community is condemned as barbarous; it ends with the justification of all and every method in the creation of 'civilization', no matter how barbarous. It is against this background that one must place the Cromwellian Conquest and all that followed, in both Hell and in Connaught

Fuck You, Parliamentary Style

I had a really good laugh over my cornflakes yesterday morning reading a piece in the latest issue of Prospect by Colin Murphy, a Dublin-based journalist. It concerns the use of ‘mental reservations’ in the Emerald Isle, which, without mental reservation, would be described as hypocrisy by people elsewhere.

Murphy supports his article with some amusing political anecdotes. In 1927 Eamon de Valera entered the Irish Parliament after taking the oath to the crown, a major step considering his position during the Irish Civil War and his previous refusal to take an oath to a British king. He was later to deny that he had ever taken it, claiming that he signed as if he was giving his autograph!

But on the scales of self-deception that counts for nothing compared with Bertie Ahern’s acrobatics. In 1997 he denounced Charles Haughey, his former boss, for taking payments from businessmen, saying that he “could not condone senior politicians seeking or receiving from a single donor large sums of money”.

Ahern, then Taoiseach, seems to have had a slight memory lapse here, for in 1993 and 1994 he himself had received some 39,000 punts in gifts from associates. When the story emerged in 2006 he claimed that the payments were to help him through a ‘bad period’ following the break up of his marriage, which, as Murphy says, had happened some six years prior to the payments. That must have been one hell of a bad patch! When questioned two years later about further payments he claimed these were ‘winnings’ on the horses.
:-))

To accuse an opponent of ‘hypocrisy’ is one of the terms disallowed by the Irish Parliament. This came up after a debate in December when Paul Gogarty, a Green deputy, apologised in advance for using “unparliamentary language” just prior to shouting “fuck you” at a member on the opposite benches. Amazingly –and I do stress that I’m taking Murphy’s word on this –‘fuck you’ is not unparliamentary language in Dublin, though ‘brat’, ‘buffoon’, ‘corner boy’ (corner boy?), ‘coward’, ‘fascist’ and ‘guttersnipe’ are, along with hypocrite. So if a cowardly fascist corner boy ever enters Parliament he or she will have some built in protection!

The Age of Outrage, or Irish Blasphemers

Ireland’s new blasphemy law came into force at the turn of the year. So, if you intend to exercise your right to free speech, the right to criticise religion, just don’t do it there; for, if you do, you may very well find yourself poorer by 25,000 Euros.

My own position here is quite clear: I would never knowingly attack or denigrate the faith of others, never knowingly cause offence. But what is one to make of a law that defines blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion”?

I really don’t know the background here but I wonder if Irish legislators paused to consider that we live in an age of outrage, an age when people are all too eager to take offense against perceived insults, intentional or otherwise. What a backward step in this second decade of the twenty-first century for a European nation to attempt something as dangerously abstract as silencing people to protect ideas. I offer no apology for this because religion, all religion, is based on an idea or a system of ideas, some good, some bad, some dreadful.

I’m not an atheist, though my personal beliefs are quite subtle. I despise the likes of Richard Dawkins, an intellectual bully who seems to be advancing old intolerant absolutes in new clothing. I do, however, wish Atheist Ireland, an organisation set up to mount a challenge to this law, Godspeed! They have now published a book of twenty-five quotations guaranteed to cause outrage amongst the outrageable. (Yes, I know it’s a neologism; please don’t be outraged!).

Michael Nugent, the group’s chair, said that it would challenge the law through the courts if charged with blasphemy. In a civilized society, he said, people have the right express and hear ideas about religion even if other people find these ideas to be outrageous. Here are two of Atheist Ireland’s quotations to outrage you;

1. Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies... But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty... What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it

2. There is some question as to whether Islam is a separate religion at all... Islam when examined is not much more than a rather obvious and ill-arranged set of plagiarisms, helping itself from earlier books and traditions as occasion appeared to require... It makes immense claims for itself, invokes prostrate submission or ‘surrender' as a maxim to its adherents, and demands deference and respect from nonbelievers into the bargain. There is nothing-absolutely nothing-in its teachings that can even begin to justify such arrogance and presumption.


The first is by Mark Twain, describing the Bible, and the second by Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens might be an easy target but who in their right mind is going to weigh into Mark Twain? :-))

Actually, I find the whole thing slightly amusing. I’m a little surprised that Atheist Ireland can’t also see the humorous side to this fatuous legislation. It’s really no more than a piece of legal window-dressing intended for the multi-cultural age, the age of supermarket faith, pick and choose as you will.

The Irish Constitution previously only offered protection to Christianity, a technical oversight that has now been made good. I assume the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions will have the good sense to ignore Atheist Ireland’s provocation, but what if the offended masses start beating down the door? The sensible thing here would have been to get rid of the anachronism of blasphemy legislation altogether and introduced some measure based on incitement to religious or racial hatred. Never mind: I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it…unless you happen to live in Ireland.

The Fairy Witch of Tipperary

Are you a Witch?
Are you a Fairy?
Are you the wife of Michael Cleary?

I have a story for you, a story of witchcraft or the most horrendous abuse of a husband by a wife that I have ever read of; I simply can’t be sure which. It’s from Ireland and it concerns one Bridget Cleary, tortured and roasted to death in Tipperary in March 1895; yes, that’s right, in 1895, long after the burning times had passed into European history.

Bridget, whose maiden name was Boland, seems to have been a remarkable woman, not at all typical of the peasant society into which she was born in February, 1867. When she was twenty years old she married one Michael Cleary, a cooper, who moved into the house she shared with her parents. Her mother died in 1894, leaving Bridget alone in the house with Michael and her father, who would also be implicated in her death.

Bridget, by reputation and report, was a single-minded woman, independent and enterprising. Unlike most of her female contemporaries she had an income of her own, earning money from the sewing she did with her Singer machine and selling eggs from the poultry she kept. Although after eight years of marriage she had no children this seemed to cause her no distress at all. More than that, she seems to have relished in the relative freedom she enjoyed, coming and going as she pleased. According to reports gathered after her murder she had a defiant nature. In The Cooper’s Wife is Missing, a book written by Joan Hoff and Marian Yeates, she is described by her neighbours as having the ‘disturbing habit’ of looking men straight in the eye, a trait attributed to Pagan women.

Bridget’s mother had the reputation of being a ‘fairy expert’ and a witch. Bridget herself is reported to be fascinated with fairy lore. Her story is an interesting demonstration of the way in which fairies and witches were closely associated in the popular mind. In the last year of her life Bridget is reported to have visited so-called ‘fairy forts’, prehistoric earthworks reputed to be the favourite haunts of the supernatural spirits. The reason for this is unclear, though one suggestion has it that she was trying to make contact with the spirit of her dead mother.

Michael himself had some experience of fairy contacts. When he was a boy his mother, also called Bridget, is alleged to have disappeared with them for days at a time. When she returned she began to practice as a ‘fairy doctor’, supposedly using supernatural attributes gifted to her. Whatever the truth of the matter Michael was left with an abiding fear and hatred of fairies, obsessed with the notion that they would also take his wife, leaving a changeling in her place.

The earliest evidence that the subject of fairy forts caused dissension between husband and wife comes around Christmas 1894, when Michael ordered Bridget to stay away from these places. True to her nature, she refused, even though Michael threatened to burn her as a witch, according to evidence later gathered at his trial.

Bridget’s last reported visit to a fairy fort came on 1 February 1895, the first anniversary of her mother’s death. The following month she took ill, supposedly showing signs of a fairy-related illness: aches, pains and chills. To begin with she received conventional medical treatment, the doctor diagnosing nervous exhaustion and slight bronchitis, but as time went by Michael began to believe that the real Bridget had been abducted by the fairies and a changeling substituted. It was soon after that the horror began.

With the aid of some neighbours and Bridget’s father, Michael attempted his own exorcism, forcing his wife to swallow bitter potions prescribed by ‘fairy experts.’ When that failed to work ever more drastic remedies were applied. She was finally put into the grate and effectively roasted, a little like a character in a fairy tale. A can of paraffin was then poured over her by her husband. Witnesses reported that he said he was not burning his wife but a witch, who would go up the chimney. Her screams of agony were ignored because they were said to be those not of the woman but the invading spirit. When some of the Cleary’s female neighbours attempted to stop Bridget’s ordeal Michael threatened to roast them also.

Bridget’s remains were later discovered almost a mile from the Cleary home, wrapped in a sheet and buried in a shallow grave. Her entire back and lower abdomen had been roasted to the bone, her internal organs all visible. In all eleven people were arrested on a charge of murder. Michael was eventually convicted of manslaughter not murder and sentenced to twenty years in prison, of which he served fifteen. Other defendants received lesser sentences depending on the degree of their involvement. On the face of it does indeed seem that Bridget was a victim of entrenched forms of superstition, mixed, perhaps, with some spousal resentment.

Superstition followed Bridget into death. No Catholic priest would officiate at her funeral because they were strictly charged against performing the sacraments where fairy-craft was suspected. Those who died under such suspicion were refused a Church burial. She was finally buried at night by four policemen, one of whom read the burial service, outside the church walls in an unmarked grave beside the body of her mother.