The relationship between Ireland and England has been controversial in Irish historiography. Two scholars who have contributed significantly to this debate are Goddard Orpen and Eoin MacNeill, whose works—”Ireland under the Normans, 1169-1333″ and “Early Medieval Ireland: A Scholarship for Politics or a Politics of Scholarship?” respectively, offer contrasting perspectives on the impact of English rule on Irish society and culture. This essay will review MacNeill’s article and consider how his work fits into a post-colonial analysis. Furthermore, the paper will explore the larger debates surrounding colonialism, post-colonialism, and imperialism in Irish historiography, including the question raised by Ó Cróinín. This regards the possessions of the Plantagenet kings in modern France and their absence from discussions of colonialism or imperialism. Ultimately, this essay will explore how political, cultural, and intellectual paradigms shape the understanding of the Irish past.
Foremost, “Eoin MacNeill’s Early Medieval Ireland: A Scholarship for Politics or a Politics of Scholarship?” is a fascinating article by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín that explores the debate between Goddard Orpen and Eoin MacNeill. The author suggests that political considerations influenced MacNeill’s work on early medieval Ireland as he sought to challenge Orpen’s narrative of Irish history. One of the issues raised by Ó Cróinín in his article is whether or not the idea of colonialism is essential to comprehending Ireland’s medieval past and its early 20th-century historiography. While he concedes that Orpen’s writing undoubtedly reflects colonial and imperialist tendencies, he contends that it is unclear whether Ireland was an English colony (Johnston 215). Ó Cróinín argues that colonialism conceptions may not be the best framework for comprehending Ireland’s medieval past because the relationship between Ireland and England was more nuanced than a straightforward colonial relationship.
Therefore, Ó Cróinín’s argument that Ireland was not a colony of England but rather a trading partner of England is a controversial opinion in Irish historiography. While there are certainly colonial and imperialist influences in Orpen’s work, Cróinín argues that it is not straightforward to determine whether Ireland was a colony of England (Johnston 212). He suggests that concepts of colonialism may not be the most useful frame for understanding Ireland’s medieval past; instead, he suggests that imperialism is more appropriate given Ireland’s uneven power relations with Britain during this period.
The Plantagenet kings were descendants of the royal Plantagenet in France, originating from Anjou. The Plantagenets held the English royal throne for more than three centuries lasting from 1154 to 1485 (Graham 45). However, despite their established control over England, it is worth noting that the Plantagenet kings’ possessions in modern France are not part of any debate on colonialism or imperialism. This fact raises interesting questions about colonial and imperialist paradigms, which can determine the understanding of history by defining certain phenomena as either positive or negative.
Furthermore, it highlights Ireland’s unique relationship with England, which may not fit neatly into established frameworks of colonialism and imperialism. Instead, MacNeill attempted to challenge the dominant narrative of Irish history, which was highly influenced by colonial and imperialist paradigms, as a response to the political climate of his day, according to Ó Cróinín (Mitchell and Ní Bheacháin 207). MacNeill’s work offered an alternative perspective to Orpen’s on Irish history, particularly concerning early Irish law and institutions. Moreover, it portrayed the Irish as a sophisticated and complicated legal system ahead of its time in many respects, as opposed to describing them as savage and lawless people (Aveyard 14; Mitchell and Ní Bheacháin 207). Ó Cróinín says that MacNeill’s work might be regarded as a celebration rather than showing traditional Irish culture as inferior.
The primary reason there has been no discussion about Plantagenet possessions in France is that they are not within the conventional bounds of the British Isles. According to Graham (48), the debate on colonialism and imperialism in Ireland has traditionally centered on England’s relationship with its closest neighbor to the west. As a result, these issues about the Plantagenet possessions are likely not immediately relevant in Irish historiography. However, this theory might be oversimplified since it ignores the larger historical context of Europe, where England and Ireland were placed.
Furthermore, another possible explanation for the Plantagenet possessions in France is that they were acquired through conquest and inheritance rather than colonization. While there are similarities between the two processes, colonization typically involves the establishment of a new political and social order. In contrast, conquest and inheritance involve the extension of an existing order (Dehelean 277). As such, it might be difficult to classify these possessions as colonialism or imperialism—terms usually used to refer to processes of domination and exploitation. These justifications, however, do not adequately address the nuanced nature of Ireland’s relationship with England or how colonial and imperialist ideologies can influence how an individual understands the past.
Overall, the absence of any discussion of colonialism or imperialism involving the possessions of the Plantagenet monarchs in contemporary France raises significant concerns regarding how political and ideological variables influence the understanding of history. It specifically draws attention to how colonial and imperialist ideologies can influence how one interprets historical events and processes by making some appear more important. Therefore, the arguments by Orpen’s and MacNeill’s works might be missing other significant facets of English history and their connections to Ireland by concentrating on England’s relationship with Ireland (Mitchell and Ní Bheacháin 208). Hence, the question of why the Plantagenet kings’ holdings in contemporary France are not brought up in any discussion of colonialism or imperialism raises crucial issues about how historical arguments are framed and how political and ideological factors influence an individual’s perception of Irish history.
Another intriguing question that Ó Cróinín raises in his work is whether the work of Orpen or MacNeill fits into a post-colonial analysis in which native societies are celebrated or, alternately, viewed as inferior. According to Mitchell (354), while Orpen’s work eternalized a narrative that cast the Irish as inferior, MacNeill’s work can be seen as a festivity of Irish culture and a rejection of the colonizer and imperialist paradigms that shaped Orpen’s work. Still, Ó Cróinín also acknowledges that MacNeill’s work was heavily told by political considerations, as he sought to challenge the prevailing narrative of Irish history shaped by social and imperialist paradigms.
Orpen’s and MacNeill’s works can be interpreted in various ways depending on an individual’s perception of their work. However, it is important not to think only about how these historians behaved during their lifetimes but also about how readers interpret them today. Nonetheless, Orpen and MacNeill’s work essentializes and supports particular colonial power structures and cultural prejudices (Mitchell 354). For instance, some colonial stereotypes about the Irish are supported by Orpen’s essentialization of Irish culture to a predetermined set of characteristics. A similar interpretation can be made of MacNeill’s emphasis on the effect of elites on Irish history and culture as a reproduction of colonial power structures that maintain social and economic inequality.
Ultimately, determining whether Orpen and MacNeill’s studies qualify as “post-colonial” involves a nuanced analysis of their writing. One should understand the potential missing facts in each scholar’s arguments before making an uninformed conclusion. Therefore, it is vital to approach their work critically and be aware of bigger historical and cultural biases in light of recent Irish history, even while their contribution to the celebration and preservation of native Irish culture can be seen as good.
In summation, Ó Cróinín’s article offers an intriguing alternate viewpoint on the argument between Orpen and MacNeill. He contends that MacNeill’s writings might be viewed as a reaction to the political climate of his day since he aimed to refute the dominant interpretation of Irish history, which was largely shaped by colonial and imperialist paradigms. Understanding the ideas of colonialism and imperialism’s intricacies and limitations is crucial to comprehend the power relations between various nations fully. In this context, and given Ireland’s special historical conditions, applying such notions may be extremely difficult. Hence, it is crucial to approach the study of Irish history from a subtle and critical viewpoint since the established paradigms may need to be modified or examined. Although colonial theories might not be the most helpful lens for interpreting Ireland’s medieval past, the argument between Orpen and MacNeill demonstrates how colonial and imperialist perspectives can influence how one perceives history.
Works Cited
Aveyard, Stuart C. “The Northern Ireland Conflict and Colonial Resonances.” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 2023, pp. 1–27. Web.
Dehelean, Cătălin. “The Story of the Last Encounter of Britain with France.” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Philologia, vol. 65, no. 3, 2020, pp. 273–284. Web.
Graham, B.J. “The Towns of Medieval Ireland.” The Development of the Irish Town, 2021, pp. 28–60. Web.
Johnston, Elva. “Eoin MacNeill’s Early Medieval Ireland: A Scholarship for Politics or a Politics of Scholarship?” Making the Medieval Relevant, 2019, pp. 211–224. Web.
Mitchell, Angus, and Caoilfhionn Ní Bheacháin. “Scholar-Diplomats, Protodiplomacy and the Communication of History: Alice Stopford Green and Jean Jules Jusserand.” Women’s History Review, vol. 31, no. 2, 2021, pp. 198–229. Web.
Mitchell, Angus. “Historical Revisit: Mythistory and the Making of Ireland: Alice Stopford Green’s Undoing.” Irish Historical Studies, vol. 44, no. 166, 2020, pp. 349–373. Web.