Irish Ireland vs. Anglo-Irish Ireland

Irish Ireland versus Anglo-Irish Ireland

陳郁仁

摘要

     The Irish independence movement aimed at the separation of Ireland from the English rule.  Nationalists advocating so shared a similar political faith but were not always agreeably on the same line.  Namely, different shades of Irish nationalists with dissimilar cultural backgrounds and political concerns often held diverse views pertaining to what Irish/Gaelic language and literature meant to them.  “Irish-Irish” nationalists who maintained the urgency of reviving the Gaelic culture as the core of national/nationalist literature were often with more radical political leaning.  Arthur Griffith and D. M. Moran, for instance, were fervent campaigners for “Irish Ireland.”  By contrast, William Butler Yeats, among others, was more inclined to a cultural fusion of the Irish-Irish and the Anglo-Irish, while his political and religious privileges did not always grant him an upper hand in this matter.

      For Irish revivalists, the preservation of the Gaelic culture and language was their top priority.  As a separatist, Moran held a radical attitude toward the Gaelic language movement by claiming only when the native language was successfully revived could Ireland be thoroughly independent from England.  In this regard, Daniel O’Connell, a major politician with significant contribution to the Catholic Emancipation in the early 18th century, was distrusted by Moran for not being a die-hard nationalist, since O’Connell encouraged his people to learn English to better their life.  In addition to language, another cultural issue was the definition of Irish national literature.  A fierce debate broke out among Irish revivalists.  Some insisted that Irish literature should solely cater to the interests of Irish people—for, about, and written in Ireland, while some expected Irish literature to be Irish in content but English as its written medium.  Their views all seem to make sense to some extent, while they share paradoxes in their arguments, for they tended to ignore the cultural and political legitimacy of the other. 

      The Irish Literary Revival, though initially being a non-political movement, had given much impulse to the movement of Irish independence.  Nevertheless, there is no easy task for the Irish to draw a line from English influences, whereas the Irish do have its distinct history, folklore, mythology, language, and literature.  Undeniably, the Irish Revival does have significant contributions to the (re-)formation of an Irish identity or identities, while it leaves more troubles to the future Irish generations, for instance, the enduring Northern Ireland Troubles in the later decades of the 20th century.

Work Citied

吳潛誠。1999。〈愛爾蘭啟示錄〉。《航向愛爾蘭：葉慈與塞爾特想像》。台北：立緒。頁1-32。

張學謙。2008。〈國家能否挽救弱勢語言？—以愛爾蘭語言復振為例〉收於施正鋒(編)《當代愛爾蘭民主政治》。台北：台灣國際研究學會。頁161-192。

McMahon, Timothy G. Grand Opportunity: The Gaelic Revival and Irish Society, 1893-1910. Syracuse: Syracuse UP, 2008. Print.