Comparative Irish History Interpretations

Within Irish history, there are three dominant historiographical viewpoints, which include: T.W. Moody’s empirical, fact based history and Roy Foster’s moderate approach which discounts mythology is also interested in dispelling myths and Brendan Bradshaw’s nationalist interpretation. While Aidan Clarke and Nicholas Canny both follow the value-free historical discourse a comparison of Clarke’s chapters in New History of Ireland,and Nicholas Canny’s Making Ireland British: 1580-1650 demonstrates that these author’s actual interpretations of the events differ.

While both Clarke and Canny complement each other in timeline, events and facts, Clarke limits his study to the political and economic sources, while Canny includes cultural aspects. Overall, Clarke looks at Irish history with a “top-down” perspective with Canny covering a broader social stratum writing a more encompassing, “bottom-up” history.

Hugh O'Neill, Early of Tyone

Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone, has become a mythological Irish hero that Clarke and Canny see in different ways. While Clarke understands him to be an ambitious, manipulative individual who was able to “easily [adapt] to his new situation with unwelcome efficiency” and “held effective sway over three counties” Canny believes that since “he was an older man whose military career was over [and though] government officials were impressed by his efficient management of his affairs” he was still taken advantage of by the surrounding lesser officials.[1] Both authors show that O’Neill was not the perfect character of Irish history that he is often known but Canny also shows his humanity, while Clarke illustrates only his negative traits.

The Plantation System

Their differences also include their understanding of the plantation system and why they believe it did not succeed. Clarke attempts to prove it failed because the actual policy was not carried out; the personal interests of the owners triumphed over the community, while Canny sees it failing because there were too many people involved in the planning and execution of the system. Canny wants to show that there were planters who worked to meet the conditions of the policy proving that the policy, when carried out as it was written, could be beneficial to the community and that it was the servitors, as well as government officials, who were responsible for the system failing.[2] Clarke, in opposition, believes that the plantation system would never be functional while there were such ambitious and manipulative men, such as Chichester, helping to formulate it.

Anglisicing Ireland v. Making Ireland British

Both authors are interested in understanding what it took “to make the Irish ‘become British’” though Clarke uses the term “anglicising” while Canny uses the term “British.” Clarke believes that it was possible to fundamentally change Ireland into a true subset of England; Canny believes that it was an attempt to bring the country under the rule of England while remaining inherently Irish.

Both historians fit historiographically with Moody and Foster but they do so in different ways. Canny believes that there is a chance Ireland could have become British if there weren’t as many people involved in the creation of its policies and if the English could have accepted that it was a truly multi-cultural society. Clarke, however, believes that Ireland could never have become anglicized because self-interest and the lack of true policy would not allow it.

[1] Aidan Clarke with R. Dudley Edwards, “Pacification, plantation, and the catholic question, 1603-23” in New History of Ireland vol. 3, eds. T.W. Moody, F.X. Martin and F. J. Byrne (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 193 and Nicholas Canny, Making Ireland British: 1580-1650 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 183.

[2] Canny, 213.

Cover of Making Ireland British

New History of Ireland Vol 3 Cover

Print Article

Email Article

View All Articles

How to subscribe to feeds