Nationalist Exegesis: Arthur Griffith’s ‘Founding of the United Irishmen’
“We, with all respect for our friends who love the devious ways – are convinced that an occasional exhibition of the naked truth will not shock the modesty of Irishmen and that a return to the straight road will not lead us to political destruction.” — Arthur Griffith
It it tempting to skim the forward of a book or the opening declaration of a publication — “what is to be learned from a self-congratulatory preamble?”, you may ponder.
In the case of Arthur Griffith’s ‘Founding of the United Irishmen’, the initial salvo for the paper of the same name, this would be a mistake.
The United Irishman was founded on 04 March 1899 by Arthur Griffith and William Rooney, a pair whose assiduous, yet effaced dedication to the cause of Irish Nationalism has scarcely been equalled.
They belonged, like Collins, to that lamentably rare genre of Irishmen: the soberminded patriot unobstructed by self-sacrificial mania. Many were prepared to endure privation, prison, and even death; fewer were prepared for tedium. Griffith, it must be stressed, did not dismiss heroism on account of his pragmatic approach; he’s explicit, in fact, in rebuking those that would would dismiss the martial endeavours of his countrymen, past and present:
"[T]here is a vile, skulking, servile spirit abroad…. a lying, dastardly spirit it prates about British greatness and British magnanimity, and foretells us devoted Britishers when we have got our “rights”; it derides nobility allied with failure and, when a voice is raised on behalf of the cause for which men died, it sniggles of ‘Cabbage gardens’ and ‘Battles of Tallaght’. We shall strive to exorcise that spirit and to make its harbourers loathsome as leprosy in the sight of the people.
Belonging to the latter category, Griffith and Rooney grasped that heroism alone was insufficient to restore Ireland to its place among the nations of the world. Hard, slow, and monotonous exertions were required in the areas of culture, industry, trade, and so forth.
The United Irishman did not spring from a vacuum, but rather a nigh-decade of metapolitical activities by nationalists in advance of the centenary of the the 1798 rebellion. Griffith states:
“[I]f the cheers which resounded recently through the land for the men and methods of ’98 were born of honest throats, our future should be secure.”
The collective fanfare encompassed a broad range of perspectives and personages, from socialists such as E.R. Stewart to John Dillon of the IPP — the latter, despite the tepidity of the Home Rule position he held, was unaverse to posturing:
“We will, by every constitutional and physical means, follow in the footsteps of the gallant men of 1798, until Ireland shakes off the bonds of slavery, and her sons make her a Nation”
Ardour and passion are reflexive attributes of events that possess significance in a people’s history. Emotionally charged fruits, lamentably, are a symptom of such collective sentiment. In the case of Irish Nationalism at the turn of the 20th century, a surfeit of publications emerged. Borne sensationally, they died swiftly as a result of their emotive parentage.
“The appearance of a new journal is an event of such frequent occurrence in Ireland that it has come to be treated with indifference. During the past few years many papers sprang into existence – wherein, indeed, lay their sole resemblance to the offspring of Jupiter – and, having no raison d’etre, died as quickly and decently as possible.”
Publications of this vein include the journal which Maud Gonne edited whilst domiciled in France between 1896 and 1897, L’Irlande Libre, and Shan Van Vocht, whose duration of subsistence slightly exceeded the aforesaid, lasting from 1896 to 1898. The latter, a Belfast based publication, was founded and edited by Alice Milligan and Anna Johnston, and upon its closure, the mailing list was provided to Arthur Griffith, who used it for The United Irishman.
For Griffith, the British claim on Ireland, irrespective of the veiled legalities expediently employed by Albion, rested upon power, not right:
“The good old rule – the simple plan – That those may take who have the power and those may keep who can”
In outlining his purview, Griffith deftly employs less committal language, opting to articulate his vision outside the bounds of strict republicanism:
“There exists, has existed for centuries, and will continue to exist in Ireland, a conviction hostile to the subjection, or dependence, of the fortunes of this country to the necessities of any other; we intend to voice that conviction.”
The strength of Griffith’s position hinges upon its breadth. The eschewal of strict ideological affiliation or fidelity to a form of government permits him to lay claim to a diverse separatist tradition on this Island — one that encapsulates the Battle of Clontarf, the gallant efforts of Hugh O’Neill and Red Hugh O’Donnell, the opposition to Poyning’s law by both the Old and New English, Grattan’s Parliament, the Young Irelanders, the IPP of Parnell, and so forth.
There exists, however, a blind-spot in Griffith’s Separatism - in its clamouring to unify the body-politic against Britain, it effaces real enmities and points of cleavage amidst those domiciled here; chiefly, the Unionist-Nationalist (Protestant-Catholic) divide.
With regards to the following extract, it must be asked: does Griffith acknowledge the chauvinism of Swift's ilk vis-à-vis the natives of this country, and if so, ought this not to impinge on our consideration of whether their claim to Irishness possesses merit?
“To be perfectly plain, we believe that when Swift wrote to the whole people of Ireland 170 years ago, that by the law of God, of nature, and of nations they had a right to be as free a people as the people of England, he wrote common sense”
We are provided with an answer to this question in ‘Prophets of Patriotism’, the raison d'être of which is a rebuttal to D.P. Moran’s contention that there is a divide between the Irish Nation, Catholic and Gaelic in origin, and the Pale, of New English stock and Protestant. Griffith avers:
“The Gael voluntarily accepted the Palesman as his countryman 250 years ago, and the Pale has led him, not always wisely, but always consistently, since against the Power which cares no rap about whether an Irishman be of the Pale or of the Gael so long as he be robbable.”
The merits, or lack thereof, of Griffith’s endeavoured refutation will be considered in a future essay. It’ll suffice, presently, to affirm that Griffith belonged to that tradition which sought to abrogate the division between Orange and Green via the collective designation of Irishman.
Griffith decried the impact of Anglo-centrism on his countrymen, stating:
"if the eyes of the Irish Nation are continually focused on England, they will inevitably acquire a 8 squint; for, in our own experience, we have known some good Irishmen who by too constant gazing on the Union Jack, acquired a degree of colour-blindness which caused them to perceive in it an emerald-green tinge."
Whilst supportive of the Irish language - for reasons of heritage, as well merely for the fact language acts as a barrier to Anglophone homogenization - Griffith counselled against fluency as a pre-requisite for membership of the nation:
"[W]e would regret any insistence on a knowledge of Gaelic as the test of patriotism"
This approach is symptomatic of Griffith’s disposition toward all facets of the national question, viz., that all authentic aspects of Irishness ought to be cultivated, embraced, and celebrated — but, not to the degree that they occupy a position of pre-eminence, whilst other aspects of Irishness are occluded, whether for reasons of negligence or ideologically driven malice.
Indicative of his view is his non-dogmatic perspective concerning Home Rule:
"we have been diligently taught that by the law of God, of nature, and of nations we are rightfully entitled to the establishment in Dublin of a legislative assembly, with an expunging angel watching over its actions from the Viceregal Lodge. We do not deprecate the institution of any such body, but we do assert that the whole duty of an Irishman is not comprised in utilising all the forces of his nature to procure its inception."
I leave the last words, as is proper, to Arthur Griffith:
“We trust we have made ourselves perfectly plain. We have not endeavoured to do aught else. Lest there might be a doubt in any mind, we will say that we accept the Nationalism of ’98, ’48 and ’67 as the true Nationalism and Grattan’s cry, “Live Ireland – Perish the Empire!” as the watchword of patriotism.”
