Correspondence

“HAVE WE A LITERATURE?”

Sir,—Your contributor seems to be sadly at sea about the meaning of
Seán O’Faoláin's articles on the study of Irish. Surely even a person
who had failed to notice Mr. O’Faoláin's contributions to other
periodicals could not so grievously miss the point of his complaints
on the texts used in University College! These texts are admittedly
not literature; no one of the authors prescribed could be called an
artist: several of the books one might almost say are the work of
illiterates. A. de B. answers that they “are of first-rate value for
students who are strangers to the Gaelic tongue”; of course if our
University intends to cater for students who are strangers to the
Gaelic tongue there is no more to say. The universities, then, are not
as Seán O’Faoláin and myself foolishly imagine they should be, places
of higher learning: they are mere elementary schools. But, even so,
A. de B. does not seem to be quite sure of himself: he defends the
reading of a book like “Solus an Ghradha” by stating that French
students in their leisure hours improve their knowledge of French by
reading Pierre Loti. I am at a loss to know whether this is persiflage
or ignorance: Loti is the greatest of modern French stylists whose
work is known all over the world: Pádraig Og O'Conaire's books, so
much as I have seen of them, are infinitely worse than the worst of
English magazine stories.

As to the main point of A. de B.'s article—“Have we a Literature?”
(by the way, I thought Mr. O’Faoláin's articles were written to show
we had a literature)—as to this the answer is obvious. A. de B. says
the literature of the eighteenth century is of great literary
importance. Mr. O’Faoláin says not. Since none of A. de B.'s friends
have succeeded in making it of any importance, since there is not to
my knowledge any beautiful or desirable book of eighteenth century
poetry, the discussion is obviously Mr. O’Faoláin's. Now, if one
should say of the classic poetry that it was of no literary
importance, there is always “Dánta Grádha” for answer. What would
A. de B. have us read?

I am afraid that the Gaelic Leaguers, A. de B. and his friends, are
quite incapable of distinguishing good from bad and they can get
nobody to take seriously their opinion on what is good or bad. Who
could accept the opinion of a man to whom Loti and the modern Irish
authors are one? I quote from A. de B.: “Let the poets of the
peop!e—that prolific school, with its remarkable verbal dexterity, its
versatility and its living charm—be given simply a just place. These
poets will then rank in Irish letters as the Elizabethan and Cavalier
lyric poets rank in English." There you are! The very worst period
that Irish produced will rank with the very best that English
produced! Quite simple. All one has to do is to refer to Mr. Corkery
and the thing is done.

Now, A. de B. writes a great deal of tosh about Mr. Corkery’s “Hidden
Ireland.” Listen to this: “The principles illustrated by quotations
from the Munster-men in a single century hold good over a larger scope
of time and space, and it remains for other critics to app?y these
principles in detail to other schools.” What in heaven’s name are the
principles Mr. Corkery has enunciated? Has he enunciated any?  Are we
to apply to the lyric poetry of the early centuries the theory that
they are mediaeval poetry? I hope not, and I would advise any critic
who dreams of it to ask himself first whether the Agamennon has not
about as much connexion with mediaeval thought and imagination as
“Liadain and Cuirithir.”

The truth is that Mr. Corkery’s book is valuable not for its
principles but for its enthusiasm. It has restored a historical
balance which to us was maddening in its onesidedness: it has enabled
us to look at one period of our disastrous history with a serener
eye. The unfortunate thing is that it is not being praised for its,
real merits, but for qualities it does not possess. It does not set up
literary standards, but since Irish-Ireland has come to that stage at
which it realises its own nakedness, realises that beside the mature
art which the Synges and the Russells and the Yeatses have produced,
its O’Laoghaires and O’Conaires are the most insignificant scribblers,
for this reason it will invent standards, invent anything that will
restore its complacency. The Ireland which expressed itself in
literature is, I believe, with Sean O’Faoláin, but I am afraid it is
still a hidden Ireland.—Yours faithfully,

FRANK O’CONNOR
Irish Tribune, 1926-08-13, p.23.