Ancient Ireland.

I. Sources. 1) The ancients. 2) Irish literature. Buildings & inscriptions. 3) Foreigners. The Scandinavians. St. Bernard, Giraldus. – 4) The later ones, especially end of the 16th century.

IIa. Race & language. Migration legends. Testimony of the ancients. What may be gleaned from the laws, Giraldus, and even the later writers about Irish customs.
b. Clan constitution, landed property, laws.

IIIa. Introduction of Christianity. Irish missionaries & scholars. J. Scotus Erigena.
b. Danish period etc. up to the invasion. Political order at that time.

On I.
On IIa. Migration legends. Senchus Mor. – The ancients: Senchus Mor II, History & Supplement. Wakefield XII, 6 (Boate) Prendergast. Senchus Mor XI. Giraldus. – Spenser. Davies. Camden, Campion p.p. Ledwich.
b. Nennius Brittonum. Senchus Mor XI & original?
On III. Senchus Mor II 9 sqq., & original chronology. Gordon. Hegel History of Philosophy. – Danica.

Draft of the Chapters "Natural Conditions" and "Ancient Ireland" of the Book on the History of Ireland

III. Natural Conditions.

At the north-west corner of Europe lies the land whose history will occupy us, an island of 1,530 German or 32,500 English square miles. But between Ireland and the rest of Europe there lies athwart it the three times larger island that, for the sake of brevity, we usually call England; it completely encompasses Ireland from the north, east, and south-east, and leaves it an open view only in the direction of Spain, western France, and America.
The Channel between the two islands, 50–70 English miles wide at its narrowest points in the south, 13 at one point in the north, and 22 at another, already permitted the Irish Scots, in the north before the 5th century, to immigrate into the neighbouring island and to found the Scottish kingdom. In the south, it was too broad for the boats of the Irish and Britons, and a serious obstacle even for the flat-bottomed coastal vessels of the Romans. But once Frisians, Angles, and Saxons, and after them Scandinavians, ventured out with their keeled vessels onto the high sea, out of sight of land, this Channel was no longer an obstacle; Ireland fell prey to the raids of the Scandinavians, and lay there as open booty for the English. As soon as the Normans had established a vigorous, unified government in England, the influence of the larger neighbouring island made itself felt – in the parlance of that time, this meant: war of conquest. If, in the course of the war, there then followed a period in which England won mastery of the sea, the possibility of successful foreign intervention was thereby excluded.
When, finally, the whole of the larger island was united into a single state, this state was bound to strive to assimilate Ireland to itself completely. If this assimilation succeeded, then the entire course of history is answerable for it. It falls under its judgement, but can no longer be reversed. If, however, the assimilation did not succeed after seven hundred years of struggle; if, on the contrary, each successive wave of invaders that swamped Ireland one after another was assimilated by Ireland; if the Irish today have still become no more Englishmen, "West Britons", as the phrase goes, than the Poles, after only a hundred years of oppression, have become West Russians; if the struggle is still not fought out, and there is no prospect of its being fought out other than by the extermination of the oppressed race – then all the geographical pretexts in the world will not suffice to prove England's calling to conquer Ireland.

In order to understand the soil conditions of present-day Ireland, we must go far back, namely to the epoch when the so-called carboniferous formation was formed.

* The centre of Ireland, north and south of the line Dublin–Galway, forms a broad plain at an average height of 100 to 300 feet above sea level. This plain, and, so to speak, the ground plan of all Ireland, is formed by the massive limestone stratum that constitutes the middle layer of the carboniferous formation (carboniferous Limestone), and upon which the coal-bearing measures (the actual coal formation, coal measures) rest directly in England and elsewhere.

In the south as in the north this plain is encircled by a mountain rim that mostly follows the coast, and consists almost without exception of older rock formations that have broken through the limestone: granite, mica schist, Cambrian, Cambro-Silurian, Upper Silurian, Devonian shales and sandstones belonging to the lowest layer of the carboniferous formation, rich in copper and lead, and in addition containing some gold, silver, tin, zinc, iron, cobalt, antimony, and manganese.

Only in a few places does the limestone itself rise into mountains: in the middle of the plain, in Queen's County up to 600 feet, and in the west, on the south shore of Galway Bay, up to somewhat over 1,000 feet (Burren Hills).

* Where not otherwise stated, the geological data cited here are taken from: J. Beete Jukes, The Student's Manual of Geology. New Edition. Edinburgh 1862. Jukes was local director of the geological survey of Ireland and is therefore the primary authority for this terrain, which he also treats in particularly great detail.

In several places in the southern half of the limestone plain there occur isolated mountains 700–1,000 feet above sea level and of considerable extent, which are formed by the coal-bearing measures. They lie in hollows of the limestone surface, from which they rise as a plateau with fairly steep edges. "The escarpments of these widely separated stretches of coal formation are so similar, and the strata of which they consist so completely identical, that one absolutely cannot avoid supposing that they were formerly spread out in continuous layers over the whole intervening country, although they are now 60–80 miles apart. This view is further confirmed particularly by the fact that among the coal fields still remaining, small isolated hills are found here and there whose summits also consist of coal measures, and that wherever the limestone plain sinks below the level of the present surface, the depression is filled in by the lowest strata of the coal formation." (Jukes, p. 286) Yet other circumstances, which would lead us here too far into detail and which may be read up on in Jukes, pp. 286–89, make it a certainty that, as Jukes says, the whole central plain of Ireland has been produced by denudation; so that, after the coal formation and the upper limestone deposits – an average thickness of at least 2–3,000, perhaps 5–6,000 feet of rock – had been washed away, it is mainly the lower strata of the limestone that now come to the surface. Even on the highest ridge of the Burren Hills, County Clare, which consist of pure limestone and are 1,000 feet high, Jukes (p. 513) still found a small upthrow of coal formation.

There thus still remain in the south of Ireland some no insignificant tracts that belong to the coal formation; among them, however, only in a few small spots does coal occur in sufficient thickness to repay mining. Moreover, the coal itself is anthracitic, i.e. it contains little hydrogen and, without admixture, is not usable for all industrial purposes.

In the north of Ireland there are also several not very extensive coal fields, whose coal is bituminous, i.e. ordinary, hydrogen-rich hard coal, and whose stratification does not entirely correspond to that of the more southerly coal districts. That here, too, the same washing away of the coal formation has taken place is shown by the fact that large lumps of coal, accompanied by sandstone and blue clay belonging to the same order of strata, are found on the surface of the limestone valley lying to the south-east of one such coal field towards Belturbet and Mohill. Frequently, in digging wells in the drift of this district, large blocks of coal have been struck, and in some cases the masses of coal were so considerable that it was believed deeper sinking must lead to a coal bed. (Kane, Industrial Resources of Ireland, 2nd ed., Dublin 1845, p. 265.)

We see that Ireland's ill luck is ancient; it begins immediately after the deposition of the coal formation. A country whose coal measures have been washed away, lying right next to a larger country rich in coal, was, as it were by a decree of nature, condemned for a long time to come to play the role of an agricultural country vis-à-vis that future industrial country. The verdict, pronounced millions of years ago, was only executed in the present century. We shall, by the way, see later how the English came to nature's aid and immediately trampled almost every germ of Irish industry by force.

Younger, Secondary and Tertiary deposits occur almost only in the north-east; we are here interested mainly in the Keuper strata in the environs of Belfast, which contain more or less pure rock salt up to a thickness of 200 feet (Jukes, p. 554), and the chalk that covers the whole of County Antrim, but is itself in turn overlain by a layer of basalt. By and large, the geological history of Ireland's development is interrupted from the end of the carboniferous formation right up to the Ice Age.

It is known that after the end of the Tertiary epoch a time arrived when the lowlands of the middle latitudes of Europe had sunk beneath the sea level and when so cold a temperature prevailed in Europe that the valleys of the still protruding mountain islands were filled down to the sea level with glaciers. The icebergs detached from these glaciers carried large and small boulders, torn from the mountains, out into the sea, until the ice melted and the boulders and whatever else earthy had been taken up by the ice fell to the bottom; a process that still goes on daily on the coasts of the polar regions.

During the Ice Age Ireland, too, with the exception of the mountain tops, was submerged below the sea level. The maximum of the submergence may not have been everywhere the same, yet one may assume it on average at 1,000 feet below the present height; the granite mountains south of Dublin must have sunk to over 1,200 feet.

A submergence of only 500 feet would leave of Ireland only the mountains, which would then lie as islands in two semicircular groups around a broad sound running from Dublin to Galway. An even deeper submergence would only diminish the islands and reduce their number, until at 2,000 feet submergence only the outermost mountain tops would project above the water.*

* Of the 32,509 English square miles of Ireland, there lie between sea level and 250 [continuation missing]

Before the Ice Age set in, the limestone plain as well as the mountain flanks must have been swept clean of many older rocks lying upon them; then followed the deposition of the “drift” peculiar to the Ice Age over the whole area covered by water. The products of weathering of the mountain islands, as well as the finely ground rock particles which fell away during the scouring of the valleys by the glaciers moving slowly but massively through them—soil, sand, gravel, stones, smoothly polished blocks in the ice itself, sharp-edged ones on its surface—all this was carried out into the sea by the icebergs breaking loose from the shore and there gradually settled to the bottom. The layer thus formed consists, depending on circumstances, of loam (derived from clay slate), sand (derived from quartz & granite), limestone gravel (supplied by the limestone mountains), marl (where finely pulverised limestone is mixed with loam) or of mixtures of all these constituents; in all cases, however, it contains a quantity of larger or smaller stones, sometimes rounded, sometimes sharp-edged, up to those colossal erratic blocks which occur still more frequently in Ireland than in the North German plain or between the Alps & the Jura.

When the land subsequently rose again from the sea, this newly formed surface acquired, roughly at least, its present configuration. In Ireland, only little washing away seems to have taken place in the process; with few exceptions, drift, in thicker or thinner layers, covers the whole level country, runs up all the valleys in the mountains, and is also frequently found high up on the mountain flanks. The stones occurring in it are mostly limestone, on which account the whole layer is commonly called limestone gravel here. Large blocks of limestone are also scattered in masses over the whole lowland, in almost every field one or several; near the mountains, of course, alongside the limestone, the local rocks derived from them, especially granite, are found in great abundance. The granite from the northern side of Galway Bay occurs frequently in the plain to the south-east as far as the Galton Mountains, sporadically as far as Mallow (County Cork).

The north of the country, up to an equal elevation above the sea, is covered with drift in the same way as the central plain; the south, between the various more or less parallel mountain ranges that traverse it, has a similar deposit to show, deriving from local rocks mostly of Silurian formation, which appears in massive quantities particularly in the valley of the Flesk and Laune near Killarney.

Up to 250 feet above sea level: 13,243; from 251–500 feet: 11,797; 501–1000 feet: 5,798; 1001–2000 feet: 1,589; 2001 feet and above: 82 square miles.

Glacier traces on the mountain slopes and on the valley bottoms of Ireland are, particularly in the south-west, very frequent and unmistakable. More sharply marked ice traces of all kinds than at Killarney (in the Black Valley and in the Gap of Dunloe), I remember having seen only in the Oberhasli and here and there in Sweden.⁵

The elevation of the land, during or after the Ice Age, appears to have been so great that Britain was for a time connected not only with the continent, but also with Ireland by dry land. At least only thus does the similarity of the fauna of these countries seem explicable. Of large extinct mammals Ireland has in common with the continent: the mammoth, the Irish giant deer, the cave bear, a species of reindeer, etc. Indeed, a rise of less than 240 feet above the present level would suffice to connect Ireland & Scotland, and one of less than 360 feet to connect Ireland & Wales by broad land ridges.* That since the Ice Age Ireland once occupied a higher level than now is proved by the submarine peat bogs occurring along the whole coast, with upright tree stumps & roots, which are in every respect identical with the lowest layers of the neighbouring inland peat bogs.

The soil of Ireland, insofar as it comes into consideration for agriculture, is therefore almost exclusively formed from the “drift” of the Ice Age, which here, thanks to its origin from slate & limestone, is not that barren sand with which the Scottish, Scandinavian, and Finnish granites have covered so large a part of North Germany, but an extremely fertile light loam soil. The variety of the rocks which have yielded and still yield their debris to this soil has supplied it with a corresponding variety of the mineral constituents required for vegetation; and if one of these, lime, is often absent in the arable topsoil itself, smaller & larger limestone blocks are everywhere found in abundance—apart from the underlying limestone rock—so that it can be added with ease.

When the well-known English agronomist Arthur Young travelled through Ireland in the seventies of the last century, he did not know what to be more astonished at: the natural fertility of the soil,*

* See map 15.a, Stieler’s Handatlas 1868. This map, as well as No. 15.d for Ireland in particular, gives a very clear representation of the terrain relief.

Draft of the Chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Old Ireland”

or at the barbarous treatment of it by the peasants. “A light, dry, soft, sandy loam soil” predominates where the land is at all good. In the “Golden Vale” of Tipperary, and also elsewhere, he found “the same sandy reddish loam I have already described, incomparable land for agriculture”. Thence in the direction of Clonmel “the whole way, through the same rich stretch of red sandy loam I have so often mentioned; I examined it in various fields and found it to be of extraordinary fertility, and as fine turnip land as I have ever seen.” Further: “The richly bearing land extends from Charleville, at the foot of the mountains, to Tipperary (town), via Kilfenann, a line of 25 miles in length, and in breadth from Ardpatrick to within 4 miles of Limerick—16 miles.”—“The most luxuriant soil is in the ‘Corcasses’ on the river Maigue, near Adare, a tract 5 miles long and 2 miles broad down to the Shannon… when this land is ploughed up, oats are first sown and yield 20 barrels (of 14 stone, = 196 lbs the barrel) or 40 common barrels per acre, and this is not considered a particularly abundant crop; they continue with oats for 10–12 years without interruption, until the harvests become leaner; then beans are sown once, and thereby the soil is so refreshed that ten crops of oats in succession can again be forced out of it; the beans bear very well. Has one ever heard of such barbarians?”—Further, near Castle Oliver, County Limerick: “The best soil hereabouts is at the foot of the mountains; it is a rich, soft, friable, mellow, sandy loam, one and a half to three feet thick, of a reddish brown colour. It is dry land, and would be excellently suited for turnips, carrots, cabbage, in a word for anything. All in all I consider it the most fertile soil I have ever seen; it is usable for every conceivable purpose. One can fatten the largest ox upon it, but this soil is equally good for sheep, for agriculture, for turnips, for wheat, for beans, for anything. One must examine the soil oneself before one can believe that a country of so beggarly an appearance can be so rich and fertile.”—On the Blackwater river near Mallow “there are flat stretches, up to ½ mile broad, where the grass is everywhere remarkably fine. It is the most splendid sand soil I have ever seen, reddish-brown, and, if ploughed up, would yield the most abundant harvests in the world. It is five feet deep, and though it can be burnt into good bricks, it is yet perfect sand. The banks of this river, from the source to the sea, are as remarkable for their scenic beauty as for their fertility.”—“Friable, sandy loam, dry but fertile, is very frequent & constitutes the best soil in the country for cultivation as for sheep. Tipperary & Roscommon are especially rich in it. The most fertile of all are the ox pastures of Limerick & on the banks of the Shannon, in Clare, the so-called Corcasses … Sand, so frequent in England, & still more frequent throughout Spain, France, Germany & Poland—continuously from Gibraltar to Petersburg—is nowhere found in Ireland except in narrow strips of dunes on the coast. Nor have I anywhere seen or heard of chalk soil.”**

** A Tour in Ireland, by Arthur Young. 3 vols. London, 177?. The above passages are to be found in Vol. II, pp. 28, 135, 143, 154, 165 & II, Part II, 4.

Young’s judgement on the soil of Ireland is summed up in the following sentences: “If I were to state the marks of an excellent soil, I should say: soil on which one can fatten an ox and equally well obtain a good crop of turnips. Incidentally, I can think of little or no such land in England, whereas in Ireland it is not uncommon.” (II, 271.) “The natural fertility, acre for acre, is decidedly in favour of Ireland.” (II, Part II, p. 3.)—“As far as I can judge of the soil of the two kingdoms, that of Ireland by far deserves the preference.” (II, Part II, 12.)

In 1808–10 Edward Wakefield, an Englishman likewise versed in agronomy, travelled through Ireland and set down the results of his observations in a very valuable work.*** His remarks are better arranged, more clearly ordered, and more complete than those in Young’s travelogue; on the whole, however, the two agree.

*** An Account of Ireland, Statistical and Political. By Edward Wakefield. London, 1812. 2 vols, in 4to.

Wakefield finds little variety in the soil composition of Ireland on the whole. Sand occurs only on the coast (it is so rare inland that large quantities of sea sand are transported inland to improve the peat & loam soil with it), chalk soil is unknown (the chalk in Antrim is, as already mentioned, covered with a basalt layer, the weathering products of which yield an extremely fertile topsoil—chalk supplies the poorest soil in England), “and tough clay soil, such as is found in Oxfordshire, in some parts of Essex, and in the whole of upper Suffolk, I have never been able to find in Ireland”. The Irish call any loamy soil clay; there may well be proper clay also in Ireland, but in any case not at the surface as in some parts of England. Limestone or limestone rubble is found almost everywhere; “limestone is a useful article and can be turned into a source of wealth that is always to be applied with advantage.” Mountains & peat bogs, to be sure, considerably reduce the fertile area. In the north there is said to be little fertile land; yet here too, in each county, extremely luxuriant valleys are found, & even in the furthest Donegal, among the wildest mountains, Wakefield unexpectedly came upon a very richly yielding tract. Extensive flax cultivation in the north alone is already a sufficient indication of fertility, since this plant never thrives in poor soil.—“A great part of the soil in Ireland carries a luxuriant growth of grass, which sits quite close upon the limestone rock. I have seen oxen of fourteen hundredweight, which

[...] rapidly fattened on a soil only a few inches deep, on which, even in the wettest season, a horse’s hoof left no impression. This is one aspect of the rich soil of Ireland; it is found throughout Roscommon, in parts of Galway, Clare, etc. Other regions again present the richest loam I have ever seen turned over by a plough; this is particularly the case throughout Meath. Where such soil occurs, its fertility is so striking that one is tempted to think nature had intended to compensate the inhabitants for their clumsy system of cultivation. — Along the banks of the Shannon and Fergus the land is again of a different kind, but equally productive, although the surface looks almost like a bog. These tracts are called the “Caucasses” (thus Wakefield writes, in contrast to Young); the subsoil is a fine blue clay, deposited by the sea, which appears to possess the same properties as the topsoil; for this soil cannot be ruined by any ploughing, however deep. — In the counties of Limerick and Tipperary there occurs yet another kind of rich soil: a dark, crumbly, dry, sandy loam, which would bear corn for several years running if only kept clear of weeds. It is equally suitable for arable land or for grazing, and, I venture to assert, a year will seldom be too wet for it nor a summer too dry. The productiveness of this soil is partly explained by the fact that the rain tears down soil-particles from the heights and deposits them in the valley. The subsoil is calcareous, so that the very best manure is already incorporated from below into the whole tract without the farmers’ having any trouble with it.” (I, pp. 79, 80.)

If a more tenacious clay, in a layer of no great thickness, lies directly on the limestone rock, the land is unfit for tillage and yields only miserable crops of corn; but it provides excellent sheep pastures, which constantly improve it, producing a dense grass mixed with white clover and bee. (I, p. 80.)

In the west, particularly in Mayo, according to Dr. Beaufort[a] there are many turloughs — larger or smaller flat hollows which, without any visible

[a] Beaufort, Rev. Dr., *Memoir of a Map of Ireland*, 1792, pp. 75, 76. Cited in Wakefield, I, p. 36.

connection with brooks or rivers, become covered with water in winter; this runs off in summer through underground fissures in the limestone rock and leaves behind a luxuriant, firm pasture soil.

“Apart from the Caucasses,” Wakefield continues, “the best soil in Ireland is found in the counties of Tipperary, Limerick, Roscommon, Longford and Meath. In Longford there is a farm (Granard Kill) which has produced eight successive crops of potatoes without manure. Some parts of Cork are unusually fertile, and on the whole it may be said that Ireland possesses soil of outstanding quality, although I cannot go as far as some writers who are of the opinion that, acre for acre, it is decidedly superior to that of England.” (I, p. 81.) This last remark, which is directed against Young, rests upon a misunderstanding of the passage from Young cited above. Young does not say that the soil of Ireland is more productive than that of England, taking both at their present stage of cultivation, which is naturally far higher in England; Young only says that the natural fertility of the soil in Ireland is greater than in England, and this Wakefield does not directly dispute.

A Scottish agronomist, Mr Caird, was sent to Ireland after the last famine in 1849 by the ministry of Sir Robert Peel to report on means of improving its agriculture. In a work on the west of Ireland — next to the extreme north-west the worst part of the country — published soon afterwards, we read:

“I was very much astonished to find so great an extent of fine, fertile land. The interior of the country is very level and, generally speaking, stony and dry; the soil dry and crumbly. The moisture of the climate produces a very constant vegetation, which has its advantages and disadvantages. It is favourable for grass and green crops,[*] but it also demands considerable and sustained effort to keep down weeds. The abundance of lime everywhere, both in the rock itself and in the shape of sand and gravel beneath the surface, is of the greatest value.” Caird likewise confirms that the whole county of West Meath consists of the finest pasture land. Of the district north of Lough Corrib (County Mayo) it is said: “The greater part [of a farm of 500 acres] is the finest fattening land for sheep and cattle, dry, crumbly, undulating land, all on the limestone rock. The fields — a close-matted luxuriant grass — are better than anything we possess,

[*] Green crops comprise all artificial fodder plants, roots of every kind and potatoes; everything that is not corn, not grass, and not horticulture.

Draft of the Chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Ancient Ireland”

except some small patches, in any part of Scotland, as far, at least, as I can remember. The best portions of this soil are too good for the plough, yet about half could be profitably used as arable land.... The rapidity with which the soil on this subsoil of limestone rock recovers, and of itself, without any sowing whatever, converts itself again into pasture land, is very remarkable.”[b]

Let us finally listen to a French authority:

“Of the two divisions of Ireland, one, the north-west, comprises the fourth part of the island, namely the whole of Connaught together with the adjoining counties of Donegal, Clare and Kerry. It resembles Wales and even, in its worst tracts, the Scottish Highlands. Here again are 2 million hectares of wild land, the grim aspect of which has given rise to the Irish saying: Go to Hell or to Connaught![c] The other, south-eastern and far larger division, comprises Leinster, Ulster and Munster, or about 6 million hectares. It is at least equal to England proper in natural fertility. The soil is not, however, everywhere the same; the damp falls of rain are even heavier there than in England. Great peat bogs cover about one-seventh of the surface; more than another tenth consists of lakes and mountains. Of the 8 million hectares in Ireland, only five million are cultivated.” (pp. 9, 10.) — “Even the English admit that Ireland is superior to England as regards the soil. Of the above 8 million hectares, rocky mountains, lakes and peat bog occupy about 2 million; 2 million more are fairly poor land. The remainder, therefore about half the entire country, is splendid land with a calcareous subsoil — what more could one desire?” (p. 343.)[d]

It will be seen that all authorities agree that the soil of Ireland, both in its chemical constituents and in its mechanical composition, unites all the elements of fertility in an extraordinary degree. The extremes — tough, impervious clay which lets no water through, and loose sand which keeps it for not an hour — are entirely absent. Ireland, however, has another drawback. While the mountains mostly lie along the coast, the watersheds between the various river basins in the interior are for the most part very low. The rivers

[b] Caird, *The Plantation Scheme, or the West of Ireland as a Field for Investment*, Edinburgh, 1850. Mr Caird wrote a series of travel reports on the state of agriculture in the principal counties of England for *The Times* in 1850-51. The above passages are to be found on pp. 6, 17-18, 121.

[c] The saying, as will be shown, owes its origin not to the dark mountains of Connaught but to the darkest period of the whole of Irish history.

[d] Léonce de Lavergne, *The Rural Economy of England, Scotland and Ireland*, translated from the French, Edinburgh, 1855.

are not able to carry off all the rainwater to the sea, and thus there arise in the interior, especially at the watersheds, extensive peat bogs. In the plain alone, 1,576,000 acres are covered with peat bog. These are mostly depressions or hollows in the terrain, for the most part former shallow lake-basins which have gradually become overgrown with moss and bog plants and have been filled up with their decayed remains. Like our north German moors, they serve only for turf-cutting; under the present agricultural system cultivation can only slowly take hold of their edges. The soil of these ancient lake-basins is everywhere marl, which received its lime content (varying from 5 to 90 per cent) from the shells of the fresh-water mussels of the lake. Each of these peat bogs, therefore, contains within its own bosom the material for turning it into arable land. Besides this, most of them are rich in ironstone. — In addition to these bogs of the plain, there occur a further 1,254,000 acres of mountain bog, a product of deforestation in a damp climate, and a peculiar beauty of the British Isles. Wherever, here, flat or slightly domed hilltops were deforested — which was done on a massive scale in the 17th and the first half of the 18th century to supply the iron-works with charcoal — a coating of peat formed under the influence of rain and mist, which later, where conditions were favourable, spread down the slopes. The whole ridge of the mountain chain which cuts through North England from north to south as far as Derby is covered with such bogs; and wherever larger groups of mountains are marked on the map of Ireland, mountain bog is also found in abundance. The peat bogs of Ireland are, however, by no means hopelessly lost to agriculture; we shall, on the contrary, see in due time what rich fruits a part of them, as well as of the 2 million hectares (= 5 million acres) of “fairly poor land” so contemptuously dismissed by Lavergne, are capable of bearing under suitable treatment.

The climate of Ireland is determined by its position. The Gulf Stream and the prevailing south-west winds bring it warmth, and produce mild winters and cool summers. In the south-west, summer lasts on deep into October, which here, according to Wakefield (I, 221), is regarded pre-eminently as the month for sea-bathing. Frost is rare and of short duration, snow almost never lies on the plain. In the bays of Kerry and Cork, which open to the south-west and are sheltered from the north, spring weather prevails throughout the whole winter; there, and in many other places, the myrtle flourishes in the open air (Wakefield cites an instance where, on a

Draft of the Chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Ancient Ireland”

country estate, it grew into trees 16 feet high and was used for stable brooms, I, p. 55), and the laurel, the arbutus and other evergreens grow up into tall trees. Even in Wakefield’s time, in the south the farmers left their potatoes out of doors the whole winter through without their having once been frozen since 1740. On the other hand, Ireland also receives the first heavy downpour of the heavy Atlantic rain-clouds. The average rainfall of Ireland is at least 35 inches, considerably more than the average for England, but certainly less than the average for Lancashire and Cheshire, and scarcely more than that of the whole of Western England. In spite of this, the climate of Ireland is decidedly more pleasant than the English one. The leaden sky which in England so often drizzles without a break for days on end is there replaced for the most part by a continental April sky; the fresh sea breezes drive up the clouds rapidly and unexpectedly, but carry them off again just as rapidly, unless they descend at once in sharp showers. And even day-long rain, such as occurs in late autumn, does not have the chronic quality it shows in England. The weather, like the inhabitants, has a more acute character, moves in sharper, more unmediated contrasts; the sky is like an Irish woman’s face.

Rain and sunshine follow one another here just as suddenly and unexpectedly, but there is no place for grey English boredom.

The oldest account of the Irish climate is given us by the Roman Pomponius Mela (de situ orbis) in the first century of our era, as follows: “Beyond Britannia lies Juverna, nearly equal to it in extent, but otherwise similar to it; of oblong shape, with a sky unfavourable to the ripening of seeds; but instead it teems with luxuriant and sweet grass, so that a very small part of the day suffices for the cattle to sate themselves, and if they are not taken from the pasture, they burst from overeating.”

“Caeli ad maturanda semina iniqui, verum adeo luxuriosa herbis non laetis modo, sed etiam dulcibus!” We find this passage translated into modern English, among others, in Mr Goldwin Smith, sometime Professor of History at Oxford and now at Cornell University, America. He tells us that it is difficult to bring in a wheat harvest in a large part of Ireland, and continues: “Ireland’s natural path to commercial prosperity seems to be to supply the population of England with the products of its pastures, with cattle, butter, etc.”

m Goldwin Smith. Irish History and Irish Character. Oxford and London, 1861. — One knows not which to admire more in this writing, which justifies English policy towards Ireland under the mask of “objectivity”—the ignorance of the professor of history or the hypocrisy of the liberal bourgeois. We shall meet both again.

From Mela down to Goldwin Smith, and down to the present day, how often has the assertion been repeated—since 1846 especially by the clamorous chorus of Irish landlords—that Ireland is condemned by its climate to supply not Irishmen with bread, but Englishmen with meat and butter, and that therefore the destiny of the Irish people is to be transported across the ocean, so that room may be made in Ireland for cows and sheep!

One sees that establishing the facts about the Irish climate is the solution of a political question of the day. And here we are concerned with the climate only insofar as it is of significance for agriculture. The observations of rain-measuring natural scientists are, given the present fragmentary state of observations, only of secondary value for our purpose; it is not so much a matter of how much rain falls, but far more, how and when it falls. The judgements of agronomists carry the greatest weight here above all.

Arthur Young considers Ireland to be decidedly wetter than England; hence the astonishing tendency of the soil to produce grass. He speaks of cases where turnip and stubble land, left unploughed, yielded a plentiful hay crop the following summer, things of which no example occurs in England. He mentions further that Irish wheat is much lighter than that of drier countries; the fields are full of grass and weeds even under the best cultivation, and the harvests are so wet and so laborious to bring in that the yield suffers greatly from it. (Young, Tour, II p. 100.)

At the same time, however, he draws attention to the fact that the soil in Ireland counteracts this moisture of the climate. The soil is everywhere stony, and therefore lets water pass through more easily. “Tough, stony, firm loam, difficult to work, is not uncommon in Ireland, but it is quite different from English clay. If as much rain fell on the clay of England (a soil type which is rare in Ireland and never occurs without many stones) as on the rocks of the sister isle, these tracts could not be cultivated. Here, however, the rocks are clothed with green, and where they consist of limestone, they bear, on only a thin layer of humus, the softest and most beautiful turf in the world.” (II, 2nd Div. p. 3, 4.)

Limestone rock is, as is well known, everywhere full of fissures and crevices, which allow the surplus water to pass through quickly. —

Wakefield devotes a very detailed chapter to the climate, in which he brings together all earlier observations down to his time. Dr. Boate (Natural History of Ireland, 1645) describes the winters as mild, 3–4 frosts a year, which rarely last more than 2–3 days; the Liffey at Dublin scarcely freezes over once in 10–12 years. March is usually dry and fine, but thereafter much rain falls; there are seldom 2–3 wholly dry days in succession in summer; in late autumn it is then fine again. Very dry summers are rare; dearth is never caused by drought, but mostly by wet. On the plain there is little snow, so that the cattle remain out of doors the whole year. Yet occasionally a snow year also occurs, as in 1635, when people then have difficulty housing their cattle. (Wakefield I, 216 ff.)

At the beginning of the last century, Dr. Rutty (Natural History of the County of Dublin) made precise meteorological observations extending over the fifty years from 1716–65. During this whole period, the south and west winds stood in relation to the north and east winds as 73:37 (10,878 S. and W. against 6,329 N. and E.). The prevailing winds were west and south-west; after them came north-west and south-east; north-east and east were the rarest. In summer, autumn, and winter, west and south-west prevail; east is most frequent in spring and summer, when it occurs twice as often as in autumn and winter; north-east occurs mostly in spring, likewise twice as frequently as in autumn and winter. In consequence, the temperature is more equable, the winters milder, the summers cooler than in London, while the air is moister. Even in summer, salt, sugar, flour, etc., absorb moisture from the air, and the corn must be dried in bakers’ ovens, something which does not occur in some parts of England. (Wakefield I, p. 172–81.)

Rutty could then compare the Irish climate only with that of London, which, as in the whole of eastern England, is indeed drier. Had material on western and especially north-western England been available to him, however, he would have found that his description of the Irish climate—the distribution of the winds over the year, the wet summers in which sugar, salt, etc., disintegrate in unheated rooms—fits this region entirely, except that the latter is colder in winter.
 On the meteorological character of the seasons, Rutty also kept lists. In the fifty years mentioned, there were 16 cold, late, or too dry springs; somewhat more than in London. Further, 22 hot and dry, 24 wet, 4 changeable summers; somewhat moister than in London, where the number of dry and of wet summers is equal; — further, 16 fine, 12 wet, 22 changeable autumns, again somewhat moister and more changeable than in London; and 13 frosty, 14 wet, and 23 mild winters, which is considerably moister and milder than in London.

According to the rain measurements in the botanic garden in Dublin during the ten years 1802–1811, the total rainfall in inches fell on each month as follows: December 27.31; July 24.15; November 23.49; August 22.47; September 22.27; January 21.67; October 20.12; May 19.50; March 14.69; April 13.54; February 12.32; June 12.07; average per year 23.36. (Wakefield I p. 191.) These ten years are exceptionally dry; Kane (Industrial Resources p. 73) gives the average of 6 years in Dublin as 30.87 inches, and Symons (English Rain Fall) that of 1860–62 as 29.79 inches. How little such measurements signify, however, given the rapidly passing, merely local rain showers of Ireland, if they do not extend over a long series of years and are not taken at very many stations, is proved, among other things, by the fact that of three stations in Dublin itself, one received 24.63, the second 28.04, the third 30.18 inches as rainfall for 1862. The average rainfall of 12 stations in all parts of Ireland (varying from 25.45 to 51.44 inches) amounted, according to Symons, in the years 1860–62 to not quite 39 inches.

Dr. Patterson says in his book on the climate of Ireland: “The frequency of our rain showers, but not the quantity of rain itself, has produced the popular notion of the wetness of our climate... Sometimes in spring, sowing is somewhat delayed by wet weather, but our springs are so often cold and late, that early sowing is not always advisable in this country. If frequent showers in summer and autumn make our hay and corn harvests risky, vigilance and industry would be just as successful in such emergencies as they are in England during the ‘catching harvests’ there, and improved cultivation would see to it that the seed supported the husbandman’s efforts.”

In Londonderry, the number of rain-free days in the 10 years 1791–1802 varied from 113 to 148 per year; average over 126. In Belfast, the same average emerged. In Dublin, the number varied from 168 to 205, average 179. (Patterson, ibid.)

According to Wakefield’s data, the harvests in Ireland fall as follows: wheat, usually in September, more seldom in August, rarely in October; barley, usually somewhat later than wheat, and oats, about a week later than barley, thus already more often in October. Wakefield, who after long investigations comes to the conclusion that the material for a scientific description of the Irish climate is still far from sufficient, nowhere expresses the view that it places serious difficulties in the way of corn cultivation. He finds rather, as will be shown, that the losses in wet harvest times are conditioned by quite different causes, and says expressly: “The soil of Ireland is so fertile, the climate so favourable, that under a suitable agricultural system the island will not only produce sufficient corn for its own use, but also a plentiful surplus, which at all times of need could serve for the requirements of England.” (II, p. 61.)

At that time, to be sure—1812—England was at war with the whole world in Europe and America, and the import of corn was greatly impeded; corn was the first necessity. Now America, Rumania, Russia, and Germany supply corn enough, and it is much more a matter of cheap meat. And therefore now the climate in Ireland is no longer fit for agriculture.

The cultivation of corn is age-old in Ireland. In the oldest Irish laws, which were written down long before the arrival of the English, the “sack of wheat” is already a definite measure of value; in the dues of the subordinates to the clan chieftains and other headmen, wheat, barley malt, and oat flour appear almost regularly in specifically prescribed quantities.

After the English invasion, corn cultivation diminished under the continual fighting, without ever entirely ceasing; from 1660 to 1725 it increased again, from then until around 1780 it fell off again; from 1780–1846, alongside predominant potato cultivation, more corn was again sown, and since 1846 corn and potatoes have steadily retreated before the advance of cattle pasture. If the climate were not suitable for corn cultivation, would it have maintained itself for over a thousand years?

To be sure, there are districts in Ireland which, on account of the rain that always falls more frequently in the vicinity of the mountains, are less suited to wheat cultivation—especially in the south and west. Alongside good years, there often occur there series of wet summers, like 1860–62, which do much damage to wheat. But wheat is not the principal corn of Ireland, and Wakefield even laments that far too little of it is grown for want of markets; there was no other market for it than the nearest mill; barley was likewise grown almost solely for the illicit whisky distilleries (which evaded taxation). The principal corn

35 In Ireland, oats were and are cultivated on at least ten times as great a scale as all other kinds of grain put together; and as the oat harvest is later than that of wheat and barley, it more often falls into the mostly fine weather of late September and October, especially in the south. And oats, moreover, can already stand a good deal of rain.

We have already seen above that the climate of Ireland, as regards quantity of rain and distribution of the rainfall over the seasons, coincides almost completely with that of north-western England. The rainfall in the mountains of Cumberland, and Westmorland and North Lancashire is far higher than in any station in Ireland known to me (in Coniston 96.03, in Windermere 75.02 inches, average of 1860-62), and yet hay is made there and oats are grown. In the same years the rainfall in southern Lancashire varied from 25.11 in Liverpool to 59.13 in Bolton, the average of all observations being about 40 inches; in Cheshire from 33.02 to 43.40, the average of all observations being about 37 inches. In Ireland, in the same years, it was, as we saw, not quite 39 inches. (All figures from Symons.) In both counties grain of every kind, especially wheat, is grown; Cheshire, until the last cattle-plague epidemic, practised, it is true, predominantly stock-raising and dairy farming, but since the cattle have largely died off, the climate is all at once declared to be quite excellent for wheat. Had the cattle plague come to Ireland and caused as terrible devastation there as in Cheshire, we should now be hearing, instead of Ireland’s natural vocation for stock grazing, the passage from Wakefield held up to us, according to which Ireland is destined to be the granary of England.

If one looks at the matter dispassionately, undistracted by the self-interested clamour of Irish landowners and English bourgeoisie, one will find that Ireland has districts which by soil and climate are more suited to stock-raising, others more to tillage, and yet others – the great majority – which are equally well suited to both; as is everywhere the case. Compared with England, Ireland is on the whole more favourable to stock-raising; but compared with France, England is likewise more favourable to stock-raising. Does it follow from this that the whole of England is to be converted into grazing land, that the whole agricultural population is to be sent into the factory towns or to America – a few shepherds excepted – to make room for cattle that are to go to France as payment for silk fabrics and wines? But that is exactly what Irish landed proprietors, who want to raise their ground-rent, and English bourgeoisie, who want to press down their wages, demand for Ireland; Goldwin Smith has said it plainly enough. And besides, the social revolution that is comprised in such a transformation of arable land into grazing land would be far more violent in Ireland than in England. In England, where large-scale cultivation predominates and the farm servants have already been largely replaced by machinery, it would signify the transplantation of at most a million; in Ireland, where small-scale and even spade cultivation predominates, it would signify the transplantation of four million, the extirpation of the Irish people.

It is seen that even natural facts become, between England and Ireland, national points of dispute. It is also seen, however, how the public opinion of the class ruling in England – and it alone makes itself heard on the Continent – changes with fashion and with interest. Today England needs grain quickly and safely – and Ireland is as if made for wheat-growing; tomorrow England needs meat – Ireland is fit only for grazing; the five million Irish defy all laws of political economy by their mere existence, they must clear out, let them see where they may stay!

8| Ancient Ireland.

The writers of Greek and Roman antiquity, as well as the Church Fathers, give very little information about Ireland.

By contrast, there exists a still fairly abundant native literature, in spite of the many Irish writings lost in the wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. It contains poems, grammars, glossaries, annals and other historical writings, and law books. With very few exceptions, however, this whole literature, which embraces the period at least from the 8th to the 17th century, exists only in manuscript. For the Irish language the printed book has only existed for a few years, only since the time when it began to die out. The rich material is thus accessible only in the very smallest proportion.

Among the annals the most important are those of the Abbot Tigernach (died 1088), those of Ulster and, above all, those of the Four Masters. These last were compiled in 1632-36 under the direction of Michael O’Clery, a Franciscan monk, with the help of three other Seanchaidhes (antiquarians), in the monastery of Donegal from materials that are now almost all lost. They have been published from the still extant original manuscript from Donegal in a critical edition with an English translation by O’Donovan, 1856.¹ The earlier editions by Dr. Charles O’Conor (the first part of the Four Masters, the Annals of Ulster, etc.) are unreliable in text and translation.

¹ Annala Rioghachta Eireann. Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by the Four Masters. Edited, with an English Translation, by Dr. John O’Donovan. 2 edit. Dublin 1856. 7 vols in 4to.

The beginning of most of these annals is formed by the mythical prehistory of Ireland; the basis is formed by old folk-legends, spun out into the infinite by poets of the 9th and 10th centuries and then brought into due chronological order by monkish chroniclers. Thus the Annals of the Four Masters begin with the year of the world 2242, when Ceasair, a granddaughter of Noah, is said to have landed in Ireland 40 days before the Flood; thus by others the ancestors of the Scots, the last immigrants into Ireland, are derived in direct genealogy from Japhet and brought into connection with Moses, with the Egyptians and Phoenicians, just as the ancestors of German tribes were connected by our medieval chroniclers with Troy, Aeneas, or Alexander the Great. The Four Masters devote only a few pages to this fable (in which the sole element of value, the real old folk-legend, has so far been impossible to distinguish); the Annals of Ulster omit it altogether; already Tigernach declares, with a critical boldness wonderful for his time, that all monuments of the Scots before King Cimbaoth (allegedly 300 years before Christ) are uncertain. But when, at the end of the last century, a new national life awoke in Ireland, and with it a new interest in Irish literature and history, it was precisely these monkish fables that counted as its most valuable component. With genuine Celtic enthusiasm and with specifically Irish naïveté the belief in these little histories was proclaimed an essential component of national patriotism; which naturally offered the super-clever English learned world – whose own achievements in the philological and historical criticism of the rest of the world are, of course, famously well known enough – the desired pretext to throw aside everything Irish as bare nonsense.²

² One of the most naïve products of that period is: The Chronicles of Eri; being the History of the Gaal Sciot Iber, or the Irish People, translated from the original manuscripts in the Phoenician dialect of the Scythian Language, by O’Connor. London 1822. 2 vols. The Phoenician dialect of the Scythian language is naturally Celtic Irish and the original manuscript an arbitrary verse chronicle. The editor is Arthur O’Connor, exile of 1798, uncle of the later leader of the English Chartists, Feargus O’Connor, alleged descendant of the old O’Connors, kings of Connaught, and, in a certain sense, Irish pretender to the crown. Before the title stands his portrait, a handsome, jovial, Irish face, strikingly similar to his nephew Feargus, grasping a crown with the right hand. Beneath: O’Connor – cear-rige, head of his race, and O’Connor, chief of the prostrate people of his nation: “Soumis, pas vaincus.”

Since the thirties of this century, however, a far more critical spirit has come over Ireland, notably through Petrie and O’Donovan. Petrie’s investigations, already mentioned, prove the most complete concordance of the oldest surviving inscriptions, since the 6th and 7th centuries, with the annals; and O’Donovan is of the opinion that these already begin to report historical facts from the second and third century of our era. For us it can be fairly indifferent whether the credibility of the annals begins a few hundred years earlier or later, for unfortunately they are almost completely barren for our purpose in that period. They contain short, dry notices of deaths, accessions to the throne, wars, battles, earthquakes, plagues, Scandinavian raiding expeditions, but little that bears on the social life of the people. Were the entire juridical literature of Ireland published, they would acquire quite a different significance; many a dry notice would gain new life through explanatory passages in the law books.

These law books, which are very numerous, are, however, likewise almost all still awaiting the time when they are to see the light of the world. At the insistence of several Irish antiquarians, the English government consented in 1852 to appoint a commission for the publication of the ancient laws and institutions of Ireland. But how? The commission consisted of three Lords (who must never be absent where there are state funds to be consumed), three jurists of the very highest rank, three Protestant clergymen, furthermore Dr. Petrie and an officer, the head of the Survey of Ireland. Of all these gentlemen only Dr. Petrie and two clergymen, Dr. Graves (now Protestant bishop of Limerick) and Dr. Todd could lay claim to understanding anything whatever of the task of the commission, and of these Petrie and Todd have since died. The commission was instructed to get the old Irish manuscripts of juridical content transcribed, translated, and published, and to appoint the necessary people for this purpose. It appointed for this the two best men that were to be had: Dr. O’Donovan and Professor O’Curry, who copied a mass of manuscripts and translated them in a first draft; but before anything was ready for publication, both died. Their successors, Dr. Hancock and Prof. O’Mahony, have then carried the work forward to the point that by now the two volumes already mentioned have appeared, containing the Senchus Mor. Of the members of the commission, by the admission of the editors, only two, Graves and Todd, took part in the work through some annotations on the proof-sheets; the officer, Sir Th. Larcom, placed at the editors’ disposal, for the verification of place-names, the original maps of the Survey of Ireland; Dr. Petrie died soon; the remaining gentlemen restricted their activity to drawing their salaries conscientiously over the course of 18 years.

This is the way in which public works are carried out in England, and even more so in Ireland, which is ruled by England. Without job-

There’s no getting on without jobbery. No public interest can be satisfied without a pretty sum or a few fat sinecures falling to the share of lords and government protégés. With the money that the completely superfluous commission has consumed, one could have printed in Germany all the unprinted historical literature — and better.⁵

⁵ In England, the use of public offices for one’s own private advantage, or for that of relatives and friends, likewise the use of public money for indirect bribery for party purposes, is called jobbery. The individual act is called a job. The English colony in Ireland is the main forcing-house of all jobbery.

The Senchus Mor is up to now our main source for the ancient Irish conditions. It is a collection of old legal provisions which, according to the — later written — introduction, were compiled at the instance of St. Patrick and, with his advice, brought into harmony with the Christianity that was rapidly spreading in Ireland. The High King of Ireland Laeghaire (428–58 according to the annals [of the] Four Masters), the sub-kings Core of Munster and Daire, probably a prince in Ulster, further three bishops: St. Patrick, St. Benignus & St. Cairnech, finally three jurists, Dubthach, Fergus & Rossa, are said to have formed the “commission” that compiled the book, and which certainly did its work more cheaply than the present one, which merely has to publish it. The Four Masters give the year 438 as that of its composition.

The text itself is manifestly based on ancient pagan materials. The oldest legal formulas in it are all composed in verse, with definite metre, and the so-called consonance, a kind of alliteration or rather consonant-assonance peculiar to Irish poetry, and frequently passing into full rhyme. As it is established that old Irish law books from the so-called Féinic dialect (Berla Feini), the language of the fifth century, were translated in the 14th century into the then current Irish (preface [Vol. I] p. XXXVI & passim), it is explained that also in the Senchus Mor in many places the metre is more or less obscured, but it still emerges often enough, along with occasional rhymes and strongly consonating passages, to give the text a certain rhythmic fall. Often a reading of the translation suffices to discover the verse formulas. In between, however, there are, particularly in the latter half, a multitude of passages of unmistakable prose; while the verse formulas are certainly ancient and traditionally handed down, these prose interpolations seem to originate from the compilers of the book. The Senchus Mor is, moreover, cited several times in the glossary ascribed to Cormac, King and Bishop of Cashel, composed in the 9th or 10th century, and it was undoubtedly written down long before the English invasion.

Draft of the chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Ancient Ireland”

For this text, all the manuscripts (the oldest seems to date from the beginning of the 14th century or older) contain a series of mostly concordant word-glosses and longer commenting notes. The glosses are quite in the spirit of the old glossaries, word-plays take the place of etymology and word-explanation; the annotations are of very varying value, often badly corrupted and in many cases unintelligible at least without knowledge of the other law books. The age of both is uncertain; the greater part is, however, probably later than the English invasion. Since, however, they show only very few traces of a legal development going beyond the text, and these only in a more precise determination of details, the larger, purely explanatory part may, with some discretion, be used unconditionally as a source also for the older period.

The Senchus Mor contains: 1) the law of distraint, i.e. practically the entire legal procedure; 2) the law of hostages, who were given in disputes between people of different territories; 3) the law concerning Saerrath and Daerrath (see below); & 4) family law. We thereby obtain many valuable insights into the social life of that time; but as long as a quantity of expressions remain unexplained, & the remaining manuscripts are not published, much remains obscure.

Besides the literature, the preserved architectural monuments, churches, round towers, fortifications, inscriptions, also provide us with information about the condition of the people before the arrival of the English. —

Of foreign sources we have only a few passages about Ireland in Scandinavian sagas, and the life of St. Malachy by St. Bernard to mention, which yield little, and then we come immediately to the first Englishman who writes about Ireland from personal knowledge.

Sylvester Gerald Barry, called Giraldus Cambrensis, Archdeacon of Brecknock, was a grandson of the gallant Nesta, daughter of Rhys ap Tewdwr, Prince of South Wales, the mistress of Henry I of England, and the ancestress of almost all the Norman captains who took part in the first conquest of Ireland. He went to Ireland in 1185 with John (later “Lackland”), and in the following years wrote, first: Topographia Hibernica, a description of the country and its inhabitants, then: Hibernia Expugnata, the highly coloured history of the first invasions. Here we are mainly concerned with the former work. Written in a most pretentious Latin, filled with the wildest belief in miracles and all the ecclesiastical and national prejudices of the time and of the race of the vain author, the book is nevertheless of great importance as the first more or less detailed account by a foreigner.⁶

⁶ Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer. London, Longmans, 1863. — A (weak) English translation of the historical works, including the above two writings (The Historical Works of Giraldus Cambrensis) was published in 1863 in London by Bohn.

From now on the Anglo-Norman sources on Ireland naturally become more abundant; but the yield for the knowledge of the social conditions of the part of the island that remained independent, from which conclusions might be drawn about the old condition, remains slight. Only towards the end of the 16th century, when Ireland was for the first time systematically and completely subjugated, do we obtain more detailed, naturally strongly English-coloured accounts of the actual living conditions of the Irish people. We shall later find that in the course of the 400 years that had elapsed since the first invasion, the condition of the people had changed only little, and not for the better. But precisely for that reason these more recent writings — Hanmer, Campion, Spencer, Davies, Camden, Moryson, etc., which we shall still often have to consult — are one of our main sources for a period five hundred years older, and an indispensable, very welcome supplement to the scanty original sources.

The mythical prehistory of Ireland tells of a series of immigrations which took place one after another and mostly ended with the subjugation of the island under the new immigrants. The last three are: that of the Firbolgs, that of the Tuatha-de-Dananns, and that of the Milesians or Scots, the latter supposed to have come from Spain. The current Irish historiography converts the Firbolgs (fir = Irish fear, Latin vir, Gothic vair, man) without further ado into Belgians, the Tuatha-de-Dananns (tuatha Irish people, district, Gothic thiuda) according to need into Greek Danaans or Germanic Danes. O’Donovan is of the opinion that at least the mentioned immigrations have some historical basis. In the annals, at the year 10 A.D., there occurs a rising of the Aitheach Tuatha (translated in the 17th century by Lynch, a good scholar of the old language, as plebeiorum hominum gens), hence a plebeian revolution in which the entire nobility (Saorchlann) was slain. This points to the rule of Scottish conquerors over older inhabitants. From popular tales about the Tuatha-de-Dananns O’Donovan concludes that these, whom later popular belief transformed into elves of the wooded mountains, survived in individual mountain districts into the second or third century of our era.

That the Irish were a mixed people, already before the English settled among them in masses, is beyond doubt. As still today, already in the twelfth century the predominant type was light-haired. Giraldus (Top. Hib. III, 26) says of two foreigners that they had long yellow hair like the Irish. Nevertheless there are still today, especially in the west, two totally different types of black-haired people; the one tall, well-built, with handsome features & curly hair, people of whom one thinks one has already met them once in the Italian Alps or in Lombardy; this type occurs mostly in the south-west. The other, squat & short in build, with coarse, straight, black hair, a flat-pressed, almost negroid face, is found more frequently in Connaught. Huxley ascribes this dark-haired element in the originally light-haired Celtic population to Iberian (i.e. Basque) admixture, which will be at least partly correct. At the time, however, when the Irish emerge with certainty in history, they have become a homogeneous people with a Celtic language, & we no longer find anywhere alien elements, except the conquered and bartered slaves, for the most part Anglo-Saxons.

The accounts of the ancient classical writers about this people are not very edifying. Diodorus relates that those Britons who inhabit the island called Iris (or Irin? the text has the accusative 'Ipw) eat humans. Strabo is more detailed: “about which land (Jerne) we have nothing certain to say, except that the inhabitants are wilder than the Britons, since they are man-eaters and great-eaters (moAucbayor, according to another reading soIldayol, herb-eaters), and consider it honourable to eat their deceased parents, and to have carnal intercourse openly with the women of others, with their mothers and sisters.” Patriotic Irish historiography has been greatly indignant about these alleged calumnies. It was reserved for more recent research to prove cannibalism, and particularly the consumption of parents, to be a transitional stage probably of all peoples. Perhaps it will be a consolation to the Irish to learn that the ancestors of the present-day Berliners still, a full thousand years later, held the same practical view: “Aber Weletabi, die in Germania sizzent, tie wir Wilze heizzén, die ne scament sich nicht ze chedenne da3 sie iro parentes mit mêren rehte ezzen sulin danne die wurme.” (Notker, quoted in Jacob Grimm’s Rechtsalterthümer, p. 488.) And under English rule we shall see the eating of human flesh in Ireland recur more than once. As for the phanerogamy — to use an expression of Fourier — with which the Irish are reproached, such things occur among all savage peoples, and how much more among the particularly gallant Celts. It is interesting to see that the island already then bore the present-day native name; Iris, Irin, and Jerne are identical with Eire, Erinn, just as Ptolemy already knew the present-day name of the capital Dublin, Eblana (with the correct accent "EßA,ocvoc). This is all the more remarkable since the Irish Celts from time immemorial have called this city by another name, Athcliath, and Duibhlinn — the black pool — is to them the name of a place on the river Liffey.

In addition, we find the following passage in Pliny’s Natural History, IV, 16: “Thither (to Hibernia) the Britons sail in boats made of willow twigs, over which animal hides are sewn together.” And later Solinus says of the Irish themselves: “They traverse the sea between Hibernia and Britannia in boats of willow twigs, which they cover with an outer coating of cattle hides.” (C. Jul. Solini Cosmographia, c. 25.) In 1810 Wakefield found that along the entire west coast of Ireland “no boats were to be met with but such as consisted of a wooden frame covered with a horse- or ox-hide”. These boats, he says, are of various forms according to the district, but all are distinguished by their remarkable lightness, so that accidents seldom occur with them. For the open sea they are naturally not fit, which is why fishing here can be carried on only in the bays and among the islands. At Malbay, County Clare, Wakefield saw such boats, 15 feet long, 5 feet broad and 2 feet deep; for one of them two cow-hides were used, with the hair inside, the outside tarred; it was fitted out for two oarsmen. A boat of this kind cost about 30 shillings. (Wakefield II, p. 97.) – In place of wickerwork – a wooden frame. What progress in 1,800 years, and after almost seven hundred years of civilising treatment by the first seafaring nation in the world!

For the rest, however, some symptoms of progress do soon appear. Under King Cormac Ulfadha, who is placed in the second half of the third century, his son‑in‑law Finn Mac Cumhal is said to have reorganised the Irish militia – the Fianna Eirionn – probably on the model of the Roman legion, with a distinction between light and line troops; all later Irish armies of which we have details distinguish kerne, light, and galloglass, heavy or line infantry. The heroic deeds of this Finn were celebrated in many ancient songs, quite a few of which still exist; they, and, perhaps, some few Scottish‑Gaelic traditions, form the foundation of Macpherson’s Ossian (Irish Oisin, Finn’s son), in which Finn appears as Fingal and the scene is transferred to Scotland. In Irish folklore Finn lives on as Finn MacCumhaill (Mac Caul), a giant to whom, in almost every locality on the island, some marvellous feat of strength is ascribed. [Irish] Feine, Fenians, is throughout the Senchus Mor the name of the Irish nation. Feinechus, Fenchus, law of the Fenians, often stands either for Senchus or for some other, lost law book. At the same time feine, grad feine, designates the plebs, the lowest free class of the people.

Christianity must have found an early foothold in Ireland, at least on the east coast. Otherwise there is no explaining why, long before Patricius, so many Irishmen play a significant role in Church history. The heretic Pelagius is usually taken for a Welsh monk from Bangor; but there was also an ancient Irish monastery of Bangor, or rather Banchor, near Carrickfergus, and that he belongs here is proven by Jerome, who calls him “dull and weighed down by Scottish porridge (scotorum pultibus praegravatus)”. This is the first mention of Irish oatmeal porridge (Irish lite, Anglo‑Irish stirabout), which was already then, as later until the introduction of the potato, and thereafter alongside it, the staple food of the Irish people. Pelagius’s principal disciples, Cölestius and Albinus, were likewise Scots, i.e. Irishmen. Cölestius, as Gennadius relates, wrote from his monastery three long letters to his parents, which shows that in the fourth century the art of writing was known in Ireland.

In all writings of the early Middle Ages the Irish are called Scots, and the land Scotia; we find this designation in Claudian, Isidore, Bede, the geographer of Ravenna, Eginhard and still in Alfred the Great: Hibernia, which we call Scotland (Igbernia the ve Scotland hatadh). What is now Scotland was called, in a foreign name, Caledonia, and in its native name Alba, Albania; the transfer of the name Scotia, Scotland, to the northern tip of the eastern island took place only in the eleventh century. The first larger migration of Irish Scots to Alba is said to fall in the middle of the third century; Ammianus Marcellinus already knows them there in the year 360. The migration took place by the shortest sea route, from Antrim to the peninsula of Kintyre; Nennius still expressly mentions that the Britons, who at that time held the whole Scottish Lowlands as far as the Clyde and Forth, were attacked by the Scots from the west, and by the Picts from the north. The seventh of the old Welsh historical triads also relates that the Gwyddyl Ffichti (see below) came from Ireland across the Northmen’s Sea (Môr Llychlin) to Alba and settled on the coast of this sea. The fact that the sea between Scotland and the Hebrides is called the Northmen’s Sea proves, incidentally, that this triad is younger than the Norse conquest of the Hebrides. Around the year 500 larger bands of Scots again came over, who gradually formed a separate kingdom, independent of both Ireland and the Picts, and at length, under Kenneth Mac Alpine in the ninth century, subjugated the Picts and established the realm onto which, about 150 years later, probably first through the Northmen, the name Scotland, Scotia, was transferred.

In the fifth and sixth centuries, old Welsh sources (Nennius, the triads) mention incursions of the Gwyddyl Ffichti or Gaelic Picts into Wales, which are generally interpreted as incursions of Irish Scots. Gwyddyl is the Welsh form for Gavidheal, the name with which the Irish designate themselves. Whence the designation Picts comes, others may investigate.

In the second quarter of the fifth century, Christianity was brought to supremacy by Patricius (Irish Patrick, Patraic, since the Celts always pronounce c in the old Roman fashion as k), without violent upheavals. Communication with Britannia, which had long existed, likewise became livelier at about this time; builders and construction craftsmen came over, who brought mortar‑building to the Irish, who had previously known only dry‑stone construction; that this appears from the seventh to the twelfth century only in ecclesiastical buildings ||| proves sufficiently that its introduction is connected with that of Christianity, and further, that from now on the clergy, the representative of foreign culture, completely separated itself from the people in its intellectual development. While the people made no social progress whatever, or only extremely slow progress, within the clergy there soon developed a literary culture that was extraordinary for the age, and which, in the manner of the time, expressed itself mainly in zeal for the conversion of heathens and the founding of monasteries. Columba converted the British Scots and the Picts, Gallus (the founder of St. Gall) and Fridolin the Alemanni, Kilian the Main Franks, Virgilius the Salzburgers – all five were Irishmen; the Anglo‑Saxons too were brought to Christianity mainly by Irish missionaries. Alongside this, however, Ireland was regarded throughout Europe as the nursery of learning, so much so that Charlemagne summoned an Irish monk, Albinus, to Pavia as a teacher, where he was later followed by another Irishman, Dungal. The most significant figure from the great number of Irish scholars, important for their time but now mostly forgotten, was the father, or, as Erdmann calls him, the Carolus Magnus of medieval philosophy – Johannes Scotus Erigena.* “He is the first with whom a genuine philosophy now begins,” says Hegel of him. He alone, among all the West Europeans of the ninth century, understood Greek and, through his translation of the writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, linked up again with the last offshoot of ancient philosophy, the Alexandrian‑Neoplatonic school. His doctrine was of great boldness for his time; he denies the eternity of damnation, even for the Devil, and closely borders on pantheism; the contemporary orthodoxy therefore did not fail to bestow calumnies upon him. It took fully two centuries before the science founded by Erigena found a further developer in Anselm of Canterbury.

Before this development of higher culture could react upon the people, however, it was interrupted by the predatory raids of the Northmen. These raids, which form the principal stock‑in‑trade of Scandinavian, and especially Danish, patriotism, came too late, and were undertaken by peoples too small, to be able to result in conquests, colonisations and state formations on a large scale, as had been the case with the earlier incursions of the Germans. The advantage for historical development that they left behind is vanishingly small compared with the enormous disturbances, fruitless even for Scandinavia, which they caused.

Towards the end of the eighth century Ireland was far from being inhabited by a united nation. A high‑kingship over the whole island existed only in appearance, and even that by no means always. The provincial kings, whose number and landed property constantly changed, warred with one another, and the smaller territorial princes likewise had their private feuds. On the whole, however, a certain rule seems to have prevailed in these internal struggles, which confined the devastation within fixed limits, so that the land did not suffer too greatly under it. But matters were to change. In 795, a few years after the first visitation of England by the same robber‑folk, Northmen landed on the island of Rathlin off the coast of Antrim and burned everything down; in 798 they landed at Dublin and are mentioned henceforth almost yearly in the annals, as heathens, strangers, sea‑robbers, never without the addition losccadh (the burning‑down) of one or more places. Their settlements on the Orkneys, Shetlands and the Hebrides (the South Isles, Sudhreyjar of the Old Norse sagas), served as their base of operations against Ireland, as well as against the later Scotland and against England.

* Further details on Erigena’s doctrine and works in Erdmann, Grundriß der Gesch. der Phil., 2nd ed., Berlin 1869, Vol. I, pp. 2A\-\1. – Erigena, who by the way was not a cleric, already shows thorough Irish audacious wit. When at table, Charles the Bald, King of France, who sat opposite him, asked him how great the distance was from a Scot (Scotus) to a blockhead (sotus), Erigena answered: The breadth of a table.

Midway through the ninth century they were in possession of Dublin,¹ which, according to Giraldus, they only then built up into a proper town, just as he also attributes to them the building of Waterford and Limerick. The name Waterford itself is only the, here meaningless, Anglicisation of the Old Norse Vedhrafiördhr, which means either storm bay (Wetterföhrde) or ram bay. The first requirement of the Northmen, as soon as they settled in the country, was naturally the possession of fortified port towns; the population of these towns remained Scandinavian for a long time yet, but by the twelfth century had long since assimilated to the Irish in language and customs. The feuds of the Irish princes among themselves greatly facilitated the Northmen’s plundering and settlement, and even the temporary conquest of the entire island. How much Ireland counted among the Scandinavians themselves as one of their regular prey-lands is shown by the alleged death song of Ragnar Lodbrok, composed around the year 1000, in the snake tower of King Ella of Northumberland, the Krákumál. In this song the old heathen ferocity gathers itself, as it were, for the last time, and under the pretext of singing King Ragnar’s heroic deeds, it rather briefly describes the raids of the entire Nordic people, in their own land as well as on the coasts from Dünamünde to Flanders, Scotland (here already called Skotland, perhaps for the first time) and Ireland. Of Ireland it says: |

 We struck with swords, piled high the slain,
Glad was the wolf’s brother of the meal through raging battle;
Iron struck on brass shield; Ireland’s ruler did not let,
Marstein, the murder-wolf or the eagle suffer want;
In Vedhrafiördhr corpse-sacrifice was given to the ravens. —

We struck with swords, in the morning we began a game,
Merry fight before Lindiseyri, with three land-princes;
Not many did rejoice that they fled from there sound;
Falcon fights for flesh with wolf, wolf’s maw ate many,
Streamlike flowed in the encounter on the strand the blood of the Irish.’¹

‘1 Snorri’s statement in the Haraldsaga, that Harald Härfagr’s sons Thorgils and Frodi
were the first of all Northmen to possess Dublin – thus at least 50 years later than
stated – stands in contradiction to all the Irish accounts, which are beyond doubt for
this period. Snorri evidently confuses Thorgils, the son of Harald Härfagre, with the
Thorgils = Turgesius mentioned below.
»»i Hiuggu ver medh hiörvi, hverr là thverr of annann;
gladhr vardh gera brödhir getu vidh soknar laeti,
lêt ei örn né ylgi, sä er Irlandi styrdhi,
(mot vardh mälms ok ritar) Marsteinn konungr fasta;
vardh i Vedhra firdhi valtafn gefit hrafni.
Hiuggu ver medh hiörvi, hädhum sudhr at morni

Draft of the Chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Ancient Ireland”

Already in the first half of the ninth century a Norse Viking, Thorgils, called Turgesius by the Irish, succeeded in subjecting all of Ireland, but with his death in 844 his realm likewise fell apart and the Northmen were driven out. The invasions
and struggles continue, with varying success, until at last at the beginning
of the 11th century Ireland’s national hero, Brian Borumha, originally only king of a part of Munster, rises to become ruler
of all Ireland and delivers the decisive battle against the Northmen, who fell upon Ireland with concentrated force, on 23 April (Good Friday) 1014 at Clontarf
(close by Dublin), whereby the power of the intruders is broken for ever.

The Northmen, who had settled in Ireland, and on whom Leinster was dependent (the king of Leinster, Maelmordha, had been placed on the throne in 999 by their aid and had since then been maintained on it by them), in anticipation of the approaching
decisive struggle, sent messengers out to the Hebrides and Orkneys,
to Denmark and Norway, to bring about reinforcements, which also arrived in abundance. The Njáls saga relates how Jarl Sigurd Laudrisson on the
Orkneys prepared for the expedition, how Thorstein Siduhallsson, Hrafn the Red and Erlinger of Straumey went with him, how on Palm Sunday
he came with all his host to Dublin (Durflin): “There was also come Brödhir with all his host. Brödhir sought by sorcery how the fight would go; and the answer so went: That if battle were joined on a Friday, King Brian would fall yet have the victory; and if | battle were joined earlier, then all would fall who were against him; then Brödhir said that battle should not be joined sooner than on Friday.”

Concerning the battle itself two versions lie before us, that of the Irish
annals, and the Scandinavian one of Njáls saga. According to this latter
“King Brian came with all his host against the burg (Dublin); on
Friday the host (of the Northmen) came out of the burg and both
hosts were arrayed. Brödhir was in one wing of the army and King
Sigtrygg (according to the Annals of Inisfallen, the king of the Dublin Northmen)
was in the other. Now it is to be told of King Brian that he would not
fight on Friday, and a shield-wall was raised about him and his host was arrayed before it. Ulf Hraeda was in the wing that
faced Brödhir; and in the other wing were Ospak and his
sons, where Sigtrygg faced them; and in the centre was Kerthialfadh
and before him the banner was carried.” When the fight began,
Brödhir was hunted by Ulf Hraeda into a wood, where he found shelter;
Jarl Sigurd had a hard stand against Kerthialfadh who pressed forward to the banner
and slew the banner-bearer, as well as the next one who seized the banner;
then all refused to carry the banner, and Jarl Sigurd took
the banner from the staff and hid it between his clothes. Soon
afterwards he was pierced through by a spear, and with that his
host-charge seems also to have been defeated. In the meantime Ospak had fallen on the Northmen’s
rear and threw Sigtrygg’s army wing after a hard struggle.
“Then flight broke out among all the troops. Thorstein Siduhallsson made
halt when the others fled, and tied his shoe-thong; then Kerthialfadh asked him
why he was not running like the others? Then Thorstein said: Oh,
I shall not get home this evening anyway, I am at home out in
Iceland. And Kerthialfadh gave him peace.” — Brödhir now saw from his
hiding place that Brian’s host was pursuing the fugitives, and that few
men had remained by the shield-wall. Then he ran out of the wood,
broke through the shield-wall and slew the king (Brian, 88 years old,
was of course no longer able to take part in the fight and
had remained in the camp). “Then Brödhir cried loudly: Now may man
tell man that Brödhir has felled Brian.” But the pursuers
returned, surrounded Brödhir and seized him alive. “Ulf
Hraeda cut open his belly and led him round an oak and
thus wound his guts out of him around the tree trunk, and he died
not until they were all wound out of him, and Brödhir’s men
were all slain.”

According to the Annals of Inisfallen, the Northmen’s army was in three
troops; the first consisted of the Dublin Northmen, together with
1,000 Norwegian reinforcements, who were all harnessed in long coats of mail;
the second of the Irish auxiliary troops of Leinster,
under King Maelmordha; the third of the reinforcements from the isles and
Scandinavia, under Bruadhair the chief of the fleet which had brought them over,
and Lodar, the Jarl of the Orkneys. Opposite these Brian formed his
army likewise into three troops; the names of the leaders do not agree, however, with
those of Njáls saga. The battle report itself is insignificant; shorter
and clearer is that of the Four Masters, which here follows:

Draft of the Chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Ancient Ireland”

“A.D. 1013 (stands, as a result of a constant error, for 1014). The
foreigners from all Western Europe assembled against Brian and
Maelseachlainn | (commonly called Malachy, king of Meath
under Brian’s overlordship) and they took with them ten hundred men in
coats of mail. A vehement, furious, mighty and evil battle was
fought between them, the like of which was not found in
that time, at Cluaintarbh (Ox-meadow, now Clontarf) precisely on the
Friday before Easter. In this battle were slain Brian, 88 years
old, Murchadh his son, 63 years old, Conaing his nephew, Toirdhealbhach his grandson, . . . (there follow a host of names). The (enemy)
troops were finally thrown from the Tulcainn to Athcliath (Dublin),
by Maelseachlainn, through fierce fighting, valour and striking down upon the
strangers and Leinstermen; and there fell Maelmordha, son
of Murchad, son of Finn, king of Leinster . . . and there were besides yet uncounted dead among those of Leinster. Also were
slain Dubhgall, son of Amhlaeibh (commonly called Anlaf or Olaf)
and Gillaciarain the son of Gluniairn, two sub-commanders (tanaisi)
of the strangers, Sichfrith the son of Lodar, Jarl of the Orkneys (iarla insi
h-Orc), Brodar, commander of those from Denmark, who was the man who
slew Brian. The ten hundred men in coats of mail were
hewn together and at least 3,000 of the strangers were slain there.”

The Njáls saga was written down about a hundred years after the battle in Iceland; the Irish annals rest, at least in part,
on contemporary accounts. Both sources are completely independent
of one another; both agree not only in the main facts, they also complement
each other. Who Brödhir and Sigtrygg were we learn first
from the Irish annals. Sigurd Laudrisson is there called Sichfrith the
son of Lodar; Sigfrith is, namely, the correct Anglo-Saxon form of the
Old Norse name Sigurd, and the Scandinavian names occur
in Ireland – on coins as well as in the annals – mostly not
in Old Norse but in Anglo-Saxon form. The names of Brian’s sub-commanders are in the Njáls saga made palatable to the Scandinavian
organ; the one, Ulf Hraeda, is even entirely Old Norse,
yet it would be bold, as some do, to draw from this the conclusion that
Brian too had Northmen in his army. Ospak and also Kerthialfadh
seem to be Celtic names; the latter perhaps corrupted from the
Toirdhealbhach named in the Four Masters? The date – the Friday
after Palm Sunday for the one, the Friday before Easter for the other
– agrees exactly, likewise the place of the battle; although in the Njáls saga he is called Kantaraburg (usually = Canterbury), it is expressly placed directly before
the gates of Dublin. The course of the battle is described most accurately by the
Four Masters: The Northmen are thrown from the plain of
Clontarf, where they attacked Brian’s army, over the Tolka, a little
river which flows past just north of Dublin, into the city
itself. That Brödhir slew King Brian, both know;
the more detailed particulars are found only in the Norse source.

We see that our information about this battle, considering the barbarism of that age, is fairly detailed and authentic; it would be difficult to find many battles of the eleventh century of which we have such definite and concordant reports from both parties. This does not prevent Professor Goldwin Smith from describing it as a “shadowy conflict” (I.e. p. 48). In Professor Smith’s head the most robust facts indeed very frequently assume a “shadowy” shape.

After the defeat of Clontarf the Nordic raids become rarer and less dangerous; soon the Dublin Norsemen come under the sway of the neighbouring Irish princes and merge with the natives in one or two generations. As the only compensation for their devastations the Scandinavians leave the Irish three or four towns, and the beginnings of a trading bourgeoisie.

The further back we go in history, the more the distinguishing marks by which peoples of the same stock differ from one another disappear. On the one hand this lies in the nature of the sources, which in proportion to their greater age become more meagre and restrict themselves to the most essential points, and on the other hand also in the development of the peoples themselves. The individual branches of the stock stood the closer to one another, and resembled each other the more, the less they diverged from the original stock itself. With full right Jacob Grimm always treated all accounts, from the Roman historians who described the Cimbrian migration to Adam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus, all literary monuments from Beowulf and the Hildebrandslied to the Eddas and Sagas, all law books from the *leges barbarorum* to the old Danish and old Swedish laws and the German *Weistümer*, as equally valuable sources for the German national character, German customs and legal relations. The specific trait may have only local significance, but the character which is reflected in it is common to the whole stock; and the older the sources, the more the local differences vanish.

Draft of the chapters “Natural Conditions” and “Old Ireland”

Just as Scandinavians and Germans differed less from each other in the seventh and eighth centuries than today, so the Irish Celts and the Gallic Celts must originally have been more similar to each other than today’s Irish and French are. We need therefore not be surprised when we find in Caesar’s description of the Gauls a host of traits which Giraldus again ascribes to the Irish twelve centuries later, and which we still find today in the Irish national character, despite all admixture of Germanic blood.

…Confidential Communication

to the Brunswick Committee

of the Social-Democratic Workers’ Party

[1] Confidential Communication.

The Russian Bakunin (although I have known him since 1843, I pass over here everything not absolutely necessary for understanding what follows) had a meeting with Marx in London shortly after the foundation of the “International”. The latter there admitted him into the society, for which Bakunin promised to work to the best of his ability. B. travelled to Italy, there received from Marx the provisional statutes and the “Address to the Working Classes”, answered “very enthusiastically”, did nothing. After years in which nothing is heard of him, he reappears in Switzerland. There he does not join the “International”, but the “Ligue de la Paix et de la Liberté”. After the congress of this Peace League (Geneva 1867) B. gets himself onto its executive committee, but finds opponents there who not only allow him no “dictatorial” influence, but keep an eye on him as “suspiciously Russian”. Shortly after the Brussels Congress (September 1868) of the International, the Peace League holds its congress in Berne. This time B. appears as a firebrand and – which must be noted *en passant* – delivered his denunciation of occidental bourgeoisie in the tone in which Muscovite optimists are wont to attack Western civilisation, in order to gloss over their own barbarism. He proposes a series of resolutions, tasteless in themselves, calculated to strike terror into the bourgeois cretins and to enable Mr Bakunin to leave the Peace League with *éclat* and enter the “International”. Suffice it to say that his programme proposed to the Berne Congress contains such absurdities as the “equality” of “classes”, “abolition of the right of inheritance as the beginning of the social revolution”, etc. – thoughtless babbling, a rosary of hollow fancies that pretend to be dreadful, in short an insipid improvisation calculated merely for a certain effect of the day. B.’s friends in Paris (where a Russian is co-editor of the *Revue Positiviste*) and London announce to the world B.’s exit from the Peace League as an *événement* and tout his grotesque programme – this *olla podrida* of well-worn commonplaces – as something frightfully marvellous and original.

B. had meanwhile entered the “Branche romande” of the International (in Geneva). It had cost him years to make up his mind to this step. But it took not even days before Mr Bakunin resolved to overturn the International and transform it into his instrument. Behind the back of the London General Council – which was only informed when everything was apparently already settled – he formed the so-called “Alliance des Démocrates Socialistes”. The programme of this society was none other than the one B. had presented to the Berne Peace Congress. Thus the society announced itself from the outset as a propaganda society of specifically Bakuninist secret wisdom, and B. himself, one of the most ignorant men in the field of social theory, suddenly figures here as a sect-founder. The theoretical programme of this “Alliance” was, however, a mere farce. The serious side lay in its practical organisation. For this society was to be international, with its central committee in Geneva, i.e., under B.’s personal direction. At the same time, however, it was to be an “integral” part of the International Working Men’s Association. Its branches were, on the one hand, to be represented at the “next congress” of the International (in Basle) and at the same time to hold their own congress alongside the other in separate sittings, etc., etc.

The human material at B.’s initial disposal was the then majority of the Comité fédéral romand of the “International” in Geneva. J. Ph. Becker, whose propagandist zeal sometimes runs away with his head, was pushed forward. In Italy and Spain B. had some allies.

The General Council in London was fully informed. It let Bakunin go ahead quietly, however, until the moment when the latter was compelled, through J. Ph. Becker, to send the statutes (together with the programme) of the “Alliance des Dém. Soc.” to the General Council for ratification. Thereupon followed a detailed reply, with full reasons – couched in a thoroughly “judicial” and “objective” tone, but full of irony in its “considerations” – which concluded:

1) The General Council does not admit the “Alliance” as a branch of the International.

2) All paragraphs of the statutes of the “Alliance” relating to its relation to the International are declared null and void.

In the considerations it had been proved clearly and strikingly that the “Alliance” was nothing but a machine for the disorganisation of the “International”.

This blow came unexpected. B. had already transformed the “Égalité”, the central organ of the French-speaking members of the International in Switzerland, into his organ, and had additionally founded a small private monitor in Locle – the *Progrès*. The *Progrès* still plays this role today under the editorship of a fanatical follower of B., a certain “Guillaume”.

After some weeks’ reflection, the central committee of the “Alliance” – under the signature of Perron, a Genevan – finally sent a reply to the General Council. The “Alliance”, out of zeal for the good cause, is willing to sacrifice its independent organisation, but only on one condition, namely that the General Council declare that it recognises its “radical” principles.

The General Council replied: it was not its function to sit in theoretical judgement on the programmes of the various sections. It only had to see that they contained nothing directly contradicting the statutes and their spirit. It must therefore insist that the tasteless phrase about the “*égalité des classes*” be struck out of the programme of the “Alliance” and “*abolition des classes*” be put in its place (which was done). For the rest, they could join after dissolving their separate international organisation and after (*nota bene*: this never happened) providing the General Council with a list of all their branches.

Thus this incident was settled. The Alliance dissolved nominally and continued to exist in fact, under B.’s direction, who at the same time dominated the Geneva “Comité fédéral romand” of the International.

To their existing organs was added the “Confederación” in Barcelona (after the Basle Congress, also the *Eguaglianza* in Naples).

B. now sought to attain his end – the transformation of the International into his private tool – by other means. He had our Geneva Romance committee propose to the General Council to place the “question of inheritance” on the programme of the Basle Congress. The General Council agreed, in order to be able to strike B. down directly. B.’s plan was this: by the Basle Congress adopting the principles (!) enunciated by B. at Berne, the world would be shown that not B. had gone over to the “International”, but the “International” to B. Simple consequence: the London General Council (whose opposition to the rehashing of the *vieillerie* St. Simoniste was known to B.) would have to step down, and the Basle Congress would transfer the General Council to Geneva, i.e., the International would fall under the dictatorship of B.

B. set a full-scale conspiracy in motion to secure the majority at the Basle Congress. Even false credentials were not lacking, such as those of Mr Guillaume for Locle, etc. B. himself cadged credentials from Naples and Lyon. Slanders of all kinds against the General Council were spread. Some were told that the bourgeois element predominated in it, others that it was the seat of authoritarian communism, etc.

The result of the Basel Congress is known. B’s proposals did not get through and the General Council remained in London.

The annoyance at this failure – with whose success B. had perhaps linked all sorts of private speculations in “his heart’s spirit and feeling” – vented itself in irritated utterances in the “Égalité” and the “Progrès”. These papers meanwhile took on more and more the form of official oracles. Soon this or that Swiss section of the International was placed under ban, because they had participated in the political movement contrary to B’s express prescription, etc. At last the long-suppressed rage against the General Council openly broke out. Progrès and Égalité mocked, attacked, declared that the General Council was not fulfilling its duties, e.g., in respect of the three-monthly bulletin; the General Council must divest itself of direct control over England and have an English Central Committee set up beside it, which should deal only with English affairs; the resolutions of the General Council on the imprisoned Fenians were an overstepping of its functions, since it did not have to concern itself with local political questions. Furthermore, Progrès and Égalité took sides for Schweitzer and categorically demanded that the General Council declare itself officially and publicly on the Liebknecht-Schweitzer question. The journal “Le Travail” (in Paris), into which Schweitzer’s Paris friends had smuggled articles favourable to him, was praised for this by Progrès and Égalité, and in the latter was called upon to make common cause against the General Council.

The time had therefore now come when steps had to be taken. The following is a verbatim copy of the missive of the General Council to the Geneva Romance Central Committee. The document is too long to be translated into German.

[/4/ Circulaire du Conseil Général de l'Association Internationale des Travailleurs au Conseil Federal de la Suisse Romande du 1 janvier 1870
(S. 159-165). /10/]

The French committees (although Bakunin had intrigued strongly in Lyon and Marseille and won over some young hotheads), as well as the Belgian General Council (Brussels), declared themselves entirely in agreement with this rescript of the General Council.

The copy for Geneva (because the secretary for Switzerland, Jung, was very busy) was somewhat delayed. It therefore crossed en route with an official letter from Perret, secretary of the Geneva Romance Central Committee, to the General Council.

The crisis had in fact broken out in Geneva before the arrival of our letter. Some editors of the Égalité had opposed the line dictated by Bakunin. Bakunin and his adherents (including six editors of the Égalité) wanted to force the Geneva Central Committee to dismiss the recalcitrants. The Geneva Committee, on the contrary, had long been weary of B’s despotism and saw itself drawn against its will by him into opposition to the other German Swiss committees, to the General Council, etc. It therefore, conversely, confirmed the editors of the Égalité who were displeasing to B. Thereupon his six men resigned from the editorial board, believing that they would thereby shut down the paper.

In reply to our missive, the Geneva Central Committee declares that the attacks of the Égalité had taken place against its will, that it had never approved the policy preached in it, that the paper is now edited under strict supervision of the Committee, etc.

Bakunin thereupon withdrew from Geneva to the Ticino. As far as Switzerland is concerned, he only still has his hand in the Progrès (Le Locle).

Soon afterwards, Herzen died. Bakunin, who since the time when he sought to set himself up as the helmsman of the European labour movement had disowned his old friend and patron Herzen, immediately after his death sounded the trumpet of praise. Why? Herzen, despite his personal wealth, had himself paid annually 25,000 francs for propaganda by the pseudo-socialist, pan-Slavist party in Russia friendly to him. By his clamorous eulogies, Bakunin has diverted these funds to himself and thereby “Herzen’s inheritance” — malgré sa haine de l'héritage — pecuniarily and morally, sine beneficio inventarii, entered upon.

At the same time, a young colony of Russian refugees has settled in Geneva, fugitive students who are really sincere and prove their sincerity by having taken up the struggle against pan-Slavism as a main point in their programme.

They publish a journal in Geneva: “La voix du peuple”.

About two weeks ago they turned to London, sent in their rules and programme, and asked for authorisation to form a Russian branch. It has been given.

In a special letter to Marx they have requested him to provisionally represent them on the General Council. This likewise was accepted. They also indicated — and seemed to want to apologise to Marx for it — that shortly they would have publicly to tear the mask off Bakunin

Confidentielle Mittheilung

because this person spoke two quite different languages, one in Russia, another in Europe.

Thus the game of this highly dangerous intriguer — at least on the terrain of the International — will soon be played out.