Anarchy in the UK: Haddon, Home Rule and Brexit

 

The following is a transcript of a Powerpoint presentation given at the 2019 Annual Conference of the Folklore Society. It was devised  in response to a call for papers that explored the relationship between  “Folklore and the Nation.”

The blog represents the first results of a four year investigation of the “skull measuring business” in Ireland in the 1890s. That project was funded by the Irish Research Council and Shanahan Research Group in association with Maynooth University and the School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin.

The presentation develops ideas that were first presented to the Irish Conference on Folklore and Ethnology in Belfast in November 2018.

 

____________________________________________________________

 

Page 1

 

Abstract

This presentation deals with ethnicity, nationalism and folklore, drawing on a forgotten anti-Imperial movement in British folklore. It begins with an anti-colonial speech delivered by Alfred Haddon in Ipswich in 1895. Haddon was aligned with the volkskunde wing of the folklore movement in Ireland and opened his speech by acknowledging nationalist efforts to disengage from political and economic union with Britain. Haddon entered anthropology through folklore, equating the destruction of native customs in subjugated territories with the loss of personal identity, ethnicity, and, ultimately, nationhood. Haddon spoke to Patrick Geddes and Havelock Ellis about reconstituting anthropology as a vehicle for radical anti-colonial activism. They were inspired by the anarchist geography of Kropotkin, the radical ethnology of Reclus, and the “Zeitgeist” of Gomme (FLS). This conference looks like the place  to remember an engagement between Irish nationalists, English folklorists and stateless anarchists /ethnologists on the brink of Ireland’s exit from union with Britain.

 

1    Haddon

TCD MS 10961/4/1v, Anthropometry in Aran: Aran Islands, 1892.

The Dublin Anthropometric Laboratory operating in the field in the Aran Islands in 1892. Courtesy of the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

02 Tom Connelly schedule 650

The original schedule of measurements taken from Tom Connelly. The schedule was based on a form developed by francis Galton for his anthropometric laboratory in London. Courtesy of the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

 

The photograph above shows Alfred Cort Haddon [on the right], with Charles R.Browne [on the left] measuring Tom Connelly (Ó Conghaile).  It was taken in 1892 during an ethnographic survey of the Aran Islands. The survey was undertaken by the Dublin Anthropometric Laboratory, which was established in Trinity College Dublin in 1891.

Francis Galton designed the laboratory and its main operating procedures. The Royal Irish Academy provided operational funding. Daniel J. Cunningham, Professor of Anatomy in TCD, provided the premises. Haddon was responsible for a programme of fieldwork that was undertaken in what he described as “ethnical Islands” in remote parts of the West of Ireland.

 

2     Methodology

This image of Haddon measuring the skulls of Irish peasants encapsulates much of what has been written about his fieldwork in Ireland.  The literature is – generally speaking – preoccupied with race bracketed by evolution and colonisation. It represents Haddon’s framing of “the Irish” as the antithesis of the cultural construction of nationality that was promoted by Douglas Hyde, the folklorist who set the agenda for cultural nationalism and republican separatism in the 1890s.

This presentation sets out to disturb this consensus with some awkward, little facts that have been gleaned from Haddon’s papers  – mainly his journals of fieldwork in Ireland, his correspondence with Patrick Geddes and Havelock Ellis, and some key anti-imperialist statements written by him between 1891 and 1892.

These “facts” were used to test the relationship between, information, rhetoric and historiography in the context of organised science and the politics of ethnology, anthropology, and folklore in the 1890s.

The question here, is whether these “facts” can sustain an argument that Haddon incorporated anarchist ideas into the agenda of folklore collection in Ireland in the 1890s, an argument that complicates conventional treatments of the historical relationship between ethnicity, folklore, and nationality in the context of Ireland’s  exit from the UK.

Clara Patterson

Clara Patterson, 1893, Children Playing “Poor Mary” in Ballymiscaw.

 

The presentation concludes with a look at Haddon’s collaboration with Clara Patterson, a zoologists turned folklore collector and photographer. This is used to demonstrate that  Haddon the Head-hunter was, in fact,  a politically radical and formally innovative folklorist.

 

3     Home Rule and Brexit

 

In this presentation I’ll be looking at the role that folklore played in the political and cultural arguments that were generated by home rule; the campaign to take Ireland out of political and economic union with Great Britain, which dominated Anglo-Irish relations in the the 1880s and 1890s.

There are some obvious parallels with Brexit. The Customs Union and a backstop for the Protestant minority in Ireland featured in the first Government of Ireland [home rule] Bill of 1886. That bill was defeated by the Conservatives supported by Unionists.

 The difference are far more significant.

Ireland was a colony and the intertwined campaigns for home rule and land reform were confronted with “coercion” legislation and the mobilisation of imperial forces. Cultural forces were also mobilised in a debate about the compatibility of the Celt and the Anglo-Saxon in relation to nationality and governance.

Folklore collectors provided evidence of a pre-conquest nation that had survived in the edgelands of Empire in Ireland. Folklore, in this context, is generally treated as a resource for cultural nationalism.

I am not arguing with that. What I am proposing, however, is that there was a far more radical, anti-Imperial movement in Anglo-Irish folklore and that it was led by Haddon, the head-hunter.

 

4      Anglo-Irish Folklore

Page 4

 

Haddon entered organised anthropology through the Folklore Society. In 1890, Gomme congratulated the Society on its capture of Haddon, who abandoned natural science and became an ardent folklorist. Gomme added that Haddon was pursuing his folk-lore work in Ireland and that he was expecting great things from him.

1890 

Haddon visited the Aran Islands for the first time and  1890. He wrote in his journal that they were the most remarkable islands he had ever visited. He spent a week documenting the islanders and their way of life. Haddon, it seems, had discovered a village community that had managed to escape the worst consequences of the Anglo-Saxon – his words – colonisation of Ireland.

Pyotr (Peter) Kropotkin, the Russian anarchist in exile in England, had used the idea of a village community to reject social-Darwinist arguments advanced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1885. Huxley, it should be noted, was probably the most powerful public scientist in Britain at the time and was, in many ways, Haddon’s boss.

Havelock Ellis commissioned Gomme to write a book on village communities. Gomme acknowledged that the social organisation of some village communities resembled modern socialism. That claim has to be taken with some caution.  It could be that  the political commentary was insinuated by Ellis as editor of the volume.

Nevertheless, Haddon read Gomme’s book before visiting the islands and he informed Ellis that he had noted the influence of the zeitgeist.

 1892 

In 1892, Haddon returned to the islands to conduct an “ethnographic” study of the inhabitants. The influence of  both Kropotkin and Gomme is evident in the report that was published in 1893.

 First, the introduction makes an historic distinction between race and ethnicity.

Second, the emphasis on the relation between race, place and political economy is             consistent with Kropotkin’s work on the village communities, which Ellis had adopted as a key part of his political agenda.

1893      

In January, Haddon persuaded members of the Belfast Naturalists’ Field Club (BNFC) to undertake fieldwork on behalf of the Ethnographic Survey of the UK. He presented the survey of the Aran Islands as a model.  The members agreed to collect folklore, but declined to undertake the measurement of peasant skulls .

1894   

In November , Douglas Hyde, the folklorist, gave a lecture at the BNFC on Celtic language and literature.

1895  

Hyde was followed by Haddon in January 1895. Haddon lectured on ‘Modern Relics of Olden Time’ and introduced a link between children’s games and savage dances.

As a result of these contrasting presentations, Hyde and Haddon have been linked in debates about the relationship between folklore, ethnology, and cultural nationalism / home rule.

 

5     Prof Haddon and Dr Hyde

page 6

 

In November 1892,  Douglas Hyde delivered his lecture on ‘The Necessity of De-Anglicising the Irish Nation’ to the National Literary Society in Dublin. This lecture is widely acknowledged as a pivotal moment in the language-based, cultural movement associated with home rule and separatism.

The Gaelic league was founded in 1893 and a branch was establish in Belfast in 1896, directly as a result of Hyde’s visit to the BNFC. This has been interpreted as an equally pivotal moment in the separation of racial and cultural determinisms of nationality.

The key text is Greta Jones’s “Contested Territories,” published in 1998.

‘Haddon’s work in anthropology’ according to Jones ‘exemplifies the dominance of Darwinian evolutionary Anthropology’ and Haddon was ‘the Darwinian evolutionist par excellence’ who regarded ‘ anthropology as a form of cultural zoology.’

 

page 8.png

 

Jones quoted a piece written by Haddon in 1890, in which he described much of Folklore ‘as Psychological Palaeontology’.  In 2017, Diamuid Ó Giolláin, in his introduction to the English-language edition of Irish Ethnologies quoted jones’ description of Haddon to illustrate significant differences between Haddon and Hyde and, by extension, between the practice of Victorian ethnology in Ireland and the cultural programme of Irish nationalists.

The problem here is that Jones misinterpreted Haddon’s original statement and the context in which it was made. 

In 1890, Havelock Ellis asked Haddon to write a general study of anthropology. Ellis wanted to include it in the Contemporary Science Series, of which he was the editor. Haddon drafted a letter to Ellis and included a list of potential treatments. Haddon’s reference to “psychological palaeontology” is a reductionist representation of a theory of folklore, which attempted to situate the study of folklore within a scientific construction of anthropology.

page 9

File: Haddon to Ellis May 14 1890

 

This circumstance of the  letter places Haddon’s comment in a really interesting context:

  • Ellis was using the Contemporary Science Series to publish anarchist texts.
  • He wanted to anchor the series in a general study of anthropology.
  • Patrick Geddes recommended Haddon for the job.

Geddes met Haddon in Cambridge in the late 1870s. In 1890, he advised Haddon to become an anthropologist but warned him that the skull measuring business had been overtaken by a great scientific movement that was developing in France around radical approaches to comparative sociology.

 

page 10

File: Geddes to Haddon 1889

 

6    The Network

Geddes introduced Haddon to the writings of anarchist and geographer Pyotr (Peter) Kropotkin and radical ethnologist Élie Reclus.  He also introduced him to Ellis. Haddon had become part of a European network of anarchists, socialist, feminists, and social reformers.

 

page-11.png

Top L-R: Élisée Reclus, Louise Michel, Pyotr Kropotkin, Élie Reclus, Noémi Reclus.                 Bottom L-R: Alice Gomme, G. L. Gomme, Patrick Geddes, Havelock Ellis, The Field Club Union.

Note 1

The photograph of the members of the Field Club Union is used to represent the network of folklore collectors that Haddon put together in Ireland, especially the women – key members of the network – for whom it was not possible to locate portraits online.

Note 2

The fact that Haddon was associating with former communards and anarchists –men and women, whose characters were, according to Geddes, ‘disciplined by the disasters of 70-71’ – may seem a little far-fetched. Haddon and Geddes refer to Kropotkin and Élie Reclus in their correspondence. Furthermore,  Haddon and Élisée Reclus participated in the Summer Meeting of Art and Science that was organised by Geddes in August 1895. Reclus gave a number of public lectures on Anarchy on his way to Edinburgh, in which he noted that there was plenty of scope for anarchy in the UK. These people – stateless anarchists and revolutionaries – were very much part of Haddon network in the early 1890s.

 

7      Clara patterson

 

page-12.png

Members of the combined field clubs of Ireland gathered on the pier in Kimurvey Bay in the Aran islands in 1895. The photograph was taken by Robert j. Welch.  It has been cropped here to emphasise the presence of a group of female naturalists.

 

Haddon built his own network in Ireland, drawing heavily of the folklore and field club movements, seen here gathered on the pier in Kilmurvey Bay in the Aran Islands in 1895.

He recruited Clara Patterson in January 1893. Patterson trained as a zoologist with Haddon and won a bronze medal in examinations conducted by Haddon under the auspices of the Society for the Extension of University Teaching.

The extension of university teaching was promoted by Geddes, Ellis, and Elisée Reclus as a means of empowering socially and politically marginalised groups. Gender equality was a priority area for political action and Haddon’s promotion of women is a matter of record.

In this context, it should be noted that Clara Patterson was not allowed to present her research on folklore to members of the BNFC. It was read by Francis Joseph Bigger, which was, as Guy Beiner noted, the practice in organisations like that. Haddon challenged such discrimination in 1890, when he arranged for Alice Shackleton to be the first woman to read a scientific paper to the Royal Dublin Society.

Haddon was a feminist.

 

page 13

In March 1892, The Belfast News-Letter reported that Patterson presented specimens at a meeting of the Microscopical Meeting of the BNFC, which was “designed to be an elaborate illustration of the course of lectures on zoology delivered in Belfast by Professor H. [sic] C. Haddon, M. A. under the auspices of the society for the Extension of University Teaching.” In May, the News-Letter reported that Patterson was awarded a Bronze medal in examinations conducted by Haddon for the Society .

page-14.png

 

Clara Patterson collected information on children’s games for Alice Gomme in 1893. Haddon persuaded her to take photographs and Patterson went up the hill to Ballymiscaw, a rural district in county Down, to get “instantaneous” photographs of peasant children playing “Poor Mary.”

in 1894, Haddon wrote about children’s games in his column in the The Irish Daily Independent. He proposed that singing games could represent the last vestiges of savage customs in contemporary society. 

This may be interpreted as evidence of Haddon’s attachment to what Tabitha Cadbury called the discredited doctrine of  “survivals.” That would not be entirely accurate. Haddon may have been using the rhetoric of “survivals,” but his intention was far more radical.

 

8    “Survivals” versus “Sympathetic Knowledge”

Haddon developed the concept of “sympathetic knowledge” and illustrated it by pointing out correspondences between the daily actions of people at the extremes of human kind. This shows how quickly he had  incorporated Kropotkin’s ideas into his treatment of anthropological problems.

Page 15

 

Haddon wrote  “Incidents in the life of a Torres Straits islander” in 1889. It was the first of a series of overtly anti-imperial statements and actions. It included the following definition of “sympathetic knowledge”:

An intimate and friendly acquaintance with savages breaks down many prejudices, and while it often reveals modes of thought and traits of character which are all but incomprehensible to us with our specialized Aryan civilization, yet human nature is displayed at every turn, and common impulses and sympathies link the extremes of human kind. 

Haddon was redefining the task of ethnographic representation in line with Kropotkin’s argument for increased access to geography in general education. The third, great task of geography was defined by Kropotkin as:

that of dissipating the prejudices in which we are reared with regard to the so-called ‘lower races’-

In 1891 Haddon incorporated these ideas into a radical critique of Imperial policy. It was rejected by the editors of a number of ‘monthlies’ before it was suppressed by Huxley in  January 1892, on the basis that it would not be acceptable to the Government.

Nevertheless, Haddon presented his case at a packed meeting of the Anthropological Secton of the British Association in 1895. He delivered a speech on the subject of interference with the civilisations of other races. It was widely interpreted as an attack on the Empire and its missionaries.

Haddon had attacked both church and state and, in the process, he had confronted the political culture of organised anthropology, especially institutional ambivalence to the extermination of other civilisations. These hardly consitute the actions of someone engaged in cultural zoology.

.

9        The Malu Zogo te

Haddon returned to the field in 1898, when he organised the Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to the Torres Strait. He filmed a one minute sequence of the dance of the Malu Zogo Te, the islander who led an initiation ceremony on the Island of  Kiam. It was the earliest known use of film as an ethnographic medium.

 

 

Haddon used a phonograph to record the islanders. A photograph of the recording session was reproduced in Head-hunters, Black, White and Brown, a narrative account of his fieldwork in Oceania that Haddon published in 1901. The photograph shows Ulai singing and Gasu on drums, while Myers acts as recording engineer. This recording does not seem to have survived, but other recording made on the day can be streamed on the British Library website.

 

Malu Patterson

 

Stills grabbed from Haddon’s film are strikingly similar to the photographs taken by Patterson in Ballymiscaw in 1893, providing a visually striking illustration of the “fact” that Clara Patterson and Haddon were involved in a joint folklore project that incorporated anarchist ideas and constituted a form of anti-racism activism.

If we regard folklore as the practical wing of ethnology – as practiced by Haddon – then we really need to rethink our attitude to (1) his ethnological fieldwork in Ireland and (2) his engagements with cultural nationalists like Douglas Hyde.

 

10    Some Conclusions

Haddon was an internationalist, whose politics were shaped by (1) a philosophical understanding of the essential unity of the human species and (2) his experience of the devastating effect of colonialism in Ireland and the Torres Strait.

Haddon used photography to materialise ‘the common impulses and sympathies [that] link the extremes of human kind.’ He used the experience of that material to persuade his folklore collectors to look beyond the local and embrace the essential unity of human kind.

Whereas Hyde sought to define nationality through the particularity of folklore, Haddon sought to use the universality of folk traditions to confront ethnocentricity at home and its consequences for other civilisations overseas.

This was one half of Haddon’s most radical innovation. The other half was the application of revolutionary audio-visual technologies to the task of making the those civilisations meaningful at home.

 

Ciarán Walsh

 

 

Works Cited

Beiner, Guy, 2012, Revisiting F. J. Bigger: A “Fin-de-Siècle” Flourish of Antiquarian-Folklore Scholarship in Ulster. Béaloideas, 80, 142-162.

Cunningham, D. J., and A. C. Haddon, 1892, The Anthropometric Laboratory of Ireland. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 21, 1892, pp. 35–39.

Gomme, G. L.,

1890, The Village Community, with Special Reference to the Origin and Form of its Survivals in Britain (The Contemporary Science Series). New York: Scribner

1891, Annual Address to the Folk-Lore Society, November 26th, 1890. Folk-Lore 2 (1),1-30.Folklore 108 (1997): pp. 120-3.

Haddon, Alfred Cort,

1890, Incidents in the life of a Torres Straits islander, Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine: A Popular Journal of General Literature, Science, and Politics. Vol XLV. (January to June, 1890). pp 567-572.

1891, A critique of the Imperial Institute (On the Need for a Bureau of Ethnology). (MSS, HP, CUL Folder 5061).

1901, Head-hunters; black, white, and brown. London: Methuen.

Hyde, Douglas, 1904, The necessity for de-Anglicising Ireland IN 1904 he Revival of Irish Literature: Addresses by Sir Charles Gavan Duffy, KCMG, Dr. George Sigerson, and Dr Douglas Hyde (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1904), 117-161.

Jones, Greta, 1998, Contested Territories: Alfred Cort Haddon, Progressive Evolutionism and Ireland, History of European Ideas 24 (3): 195-211.

Kropotkin, Peter, 1885, What Geography Ought to Be, The Nineteenth Century, Vol. 18, pp. 940-56.

O’Giolláin, Diarmuid, (ed.), 2017, Irish Ethnologies, Indiana 46556: University of Notre Dame Press.

 

Logo-Banner

 

Knock-Knock-Knocking on Heaven’s Door

The Man With The Magic Lantern

 

ARCHDEACON-tile3

The Man: Fr Bartholomew Cavanagh ( 1821-1897), Parish Priest of Knock and Aughamore in 1879. This is man who may have engineered an apparition using a magic lantern. The site of the apparition is visible in the background. Photo: Knock Shrine

 

The Pope is going to Knock

where the Blessed Virgin appeared to a group of local people139 years ago on this date (August 21, 1879).

Sceptics have always suspected that some form of optical device was used to trick the villagers into believing that they had been visited by the Virgin Mary, St Joseph and St John the Evangelist. One such sceptic was the Rev Dr Francis Lennon, Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in Maynooth.

He investigated the possible use of a magic  lantern, an early form of image projector powered by a gas lantern (limelight) or an electric arc light from the 1860s onwards. Lennon was working on behalf of a Commission of Enquiry appointed by the church to collect eyewitness statements and verify that an apparition had occurred.

 

magic-lantern-1008x1024

The Magic Lantern. Photo: Sonya Tyrna

 

The Pope’s endorsement of Knock as a recognised site of Marian apparition is a fairly clear-cut indication of the outcome of that inquiry but, from the very beginning, some people have suspected that (1) the apparition was in fact a photographic slide that was projected unto a wall of the church just as it was getting dark and (2) the event was engineered by the local parish priest.

There is plenty of literature about the so-called “Magic Lantern Theory,” the best texts being an article by Paul Carpenter in the New Hibernia Review (2011) and an academic treatment of the apparition by Eugene Hynes (2009). There is plenty of material online both from a devotional and a hoaxer perspective.

Carpenter is available online and is probably the best place to start. He gives a comprehensive account of arguments for and against the use of a projector.  Hynes, according to Carpenter, is one of the few social historians to critically examine the “Magic Lantern Theory” in an effort to determine what the witnesses actually saw.

 

Apparition Mosaic unveiled at Knock

The Apparition: The Basilica mosaic depicting the apparition of 1879. It was designed by P. J. Lynch and crafted by artisan mosaic makers in Italy. It was unveiled in 2016. Photo: Knock Shrine.

 

This blog deals with two key pieces pieces of evidence that were missed by both Carpenter and Hynes.

The first is an account by James Hack Tuke of a visit to Knock six months or so after the apparition. Tuke is in no doubt that a lantern projector was used.

The second is a story I was told by the grandson of Thomas Mason, the man who rented a projector to the parish priest of Knock at the time of the apparition. Mason couldn’t prove that his projector had been used to create an “apparition.”

Neither account definitively supports or contradicts the “Magic Lantern Theory” but they do add nuance to a story that is bound to surface in response to the current Papal visit to Knock.

 

Tuke Visits The Scene Of The Apparition

Tuke visited Knock in March 1880 in response to reports that ‘an apparition … is stated to have appeared last August, when the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph and a figure dressed as a Bishop (called now St. John) were seen with an altar etc. etc. depicted in the evening upon the east end of the church’ (my emphasis).

Tuke described the visit in great detail in a letter to his daughters at home in England. The Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, Tuke’s biographer, introduced the letter as ‘a curious bit of narrative’ that would relieve an otherwise unending tale of distress and misery in Ireland.

Tuke had been involved in the distribution of famine relief in Donegal and Connaught during the Great Famine or An Gorta Mór of 1845-9. He was called on again when the agricultural crisis of 1879 tipped the region into famine, the Second Famine or An Gorta Beag as it was called. Tuke arrived in the west of Ireland in February 1880 and spent six weeks organising the delivery of emergency food aid to starving cottiers in Donegal and Connaught.

 

 

relief Tuke

Sketch showing the distribution of relief tickets in the turf market in Westport. From the Illustrated London News, March 6, 1880. The man in the top hat may be Tuke. Photo: Mayo Library

 

The apparition in Knock made the news in January 1880. The first account was published in the Tuam News, a newspaper founded by Canon Ulick Bourke of Claremorris. Bourke’s mother was a cousin of the Archbishop MacHale of Tuam but Bourke is remembered in his own right as an important Gaelic scholar, activist, and writer. The  Knock “story” was written by John McPhilpin, Bourke’s nephew, and can only be read as the archdiocese’s version of what happened in Knock in August 1879.

 

Knock apparitions

Four illustrations, captioned “The alleged apparitions at Knock”, depicting Fr. Kavanagh [sic], Pastor of Knock; Fr. Kavanagh’s house; exterior and interior of Knock chapel. From The Graphic,  July 17, 1880. Source / Caption: Mayo Library

Archbishop MacHale of Tuam, who set up the Commission of Enquiry, found that the words of the witnesses were “trustworthy and satisfactory.”  The status of the apparition was settled and Knock was quickly framed as the site of a Marian apparition, one of 12 recognised by the Catholic church between 1531 and 1933.

Tales of miraculous cures abounded and hundreds of pilgrims descended on Knock. Tuke described the village ‘as a dirty, small cluster of houses, with a church on a hill.’ A thriving ‘fair’ was in progress in which books, images etc. were being sold to crowds of pilgrims who were doing the rounds.

 

Sexton-Image

This photograph was taken in 1880. Pilgrims gathered at the gable where the apparition was seen. The wall had to be covered with a wooden screen to prevent pilgrims from removing the plaster.  Photo: Knock Shrine.

 

Tuke thought that the business of the apparition was a strange affair and ‘impossible to account for, unless in the first some trick has been played …’ Tuke suggests that a lantern slide projector was used to ‘depict’ the Blessed Virgin as if she was appearing in a ‘vision.’

‘I confess’ he wrote’ that as I heard it described the day before by another priest, it gave me the feeling that it was like the effect of a dissolving view, especially as he said there were lights running up and down the wall (just like the last scene in a lantern slide).’ Tuke’s account has to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Father Cavanagh was the only cleric in Knock on the evening of the 21 August 1879 but he did not  witness the event. Mary McLoughlin, his housekeeper, did and testified as much when the Commission of Enquiry convened in October 1879.

She described how she was passing the church and noticed what she thought was a group of statues bathed in a strange light. She continued on her way but returned with a friend and realised that there was something extraordinary about the figures. She sent for other neighbours to witness the scene.

She then went to Father Cavanagh to tell him of ‘the beautiful things that were to be seen at the gable of the chapel’ but ‘He appeared to make nothing of what [she] said, and, consequently, he did not go.’  It was a decision he would struggle with as word of the apparition spread but the main point here is that the event–the apparition–was not witnessed by any priest.

 

operating a lantern Slide

The Magic Lantern in action. Source: Martyn Jolly.

 

Tuke’s suggestion that another, unidentified priest had witnessed the event is, at best, misleading. It is possible that Tuke was talking to a priest involved in testing the theory that a magic lantern or some sort of optical device had been used to create the apparition. The Commission of Enquiry asked Francis Lennon, Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy in Maynooth, to investigate the possibility that a magic lantern was used, presumably by Cavanagh although that is not stated anywhere.

Lennon was a sceptic. He did not believe that supernatural agency was at work in Knock. He conducted experiments with a projector at the site of the apparition and concluded that a lantern could not have been used. The layout of the site, Lennon argued, made a projection unrealistic and he proposed the skillful application of a fluorescent substance to the gable wall as an alternative device.

 

gable end

Knock Map

The site of the apparition. The witnesses stood on the road to the west of the school. The windows in the western wall were the most likely place to put a projector.

 

Despite this, the “Magic Lantern Theory” was quickly adopted by sceptics like Tuke and Michael McCarthy,  an anti-clerical nationalist and author. McCarthy and Tuke were alarmed at the take over of of social institutions by a politically aggressive and increasingly powerful Roman Catholic Church.

They were vocal in their opposition to it and it fuelled their subsequent opposition to Home Rule.  McCarthy published Priests and People in Ireland in 1902. It was a stinging critique of the relation between priests and people in Ireland in which McCarthy claimed (1) that witness testimonies had been filtered by the clergy and (2) that the witnesses had seen a composite image disseminated by a projection device hidden in the sacristy.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence in the witness statements to support the use of a lantern projector. The vision lasted for over an hour, during which time it remained static and, unlike other Marian apparitions, the Blessed Virgin did not speak to the witnesses.  The figures reminded some witnesses of statues. The light surrounding them sparkled in the rain. It sounds very like a description of an outdoor projection of religious imagery.

Tuke’s statement is, at best, hearsay but there is a bigger problem with it. Tuke was meticulous in terms of the accuracy of his reports of conditions in the west of Ireland. His sources were identified so that their information could be checked. Tuke did not identify the priest he spoke with in Knock and that omission makes his statement far less credible.

 

The Man Who Provided The Priest With A Magic Lantern

The apparition in Knock coincided with the a massive increase in the availability of photographic slides and improved projectors. There was  a corresponding increase in the use of this technology to inform and influence the general public. There was an equally dramatic increase in public demand for photographic slide shows.

The parish priest in Knock might be described as an early adopter of those technologies and the apparition in  Knock may have been the accidental result of an experimental slideshow. The really interesting thing about this is that Thomas Mason, the man who provided the priest with a projector, has left an account of that transaction and its consequences.  This may be the key to understanding the ‘beautiful likenesses’ described by Mrs. Hugh Flatley one of the eyewitnesses.

 

Religious Lantern Slide

A lantern slide depicting a scene from the Bible. A similar slide may have been used in Knock. Mary McLoughlin initially thought that Father Cavanagh had left decorative figures from Dublin standing against the gable. Photo: Pinterest

 

Photographic slides transformed the use of lantern projectors in public as a medium for entertainment, education, and political campaigning. The Langenheim brothers of Philadelphia invented a system for printing positive photographic images on glass in 1848 and, by the 1850s, they were manufacturing and selling “Hyalotypes,” their brand of photographic glass slides.

 

langenheim_lantern_slide

A Langenheim lantern slide of the Smithsonian Institution Building under construction in 1850. Photo: Smithsonian.

 

In the 1870s and 1880s the lantern trade expanded enormously. By the 1890s over 30 companies were engaged in the production of lanterns and slides in London alone (Magic Lantern). 60 commercial photographic studios opened in Dublin between 1860 and 1870.

The Mason firm traded in scientific and optical equipment, including lantern slide projectors. The firm was established in 1780 and predated the invention of photography but, according to Edward Chandler, the Mason name has long been associated with the development of photography in Ireland.

It was, according to Chandler, one of the few firms in Dublin that provided a slide making service and ‘a religious or university lecturer could take a miscellaneous collection of photographs, prints, maps and other documents and have them made into a set of slides for projection.’

 

img20180821_17374159

The building on the corner of Parliament St., Dublin that was occupied by the Mason optical business between 1780 and 1894. Photo: Edward Chandler.

 

Thomas Mason, who took over the firm in 1887, told his grandson that he had rented a lantern projector to the Parish Priest of Knock around the time of the apparition but, as he had not been in Knock at the time, he would not speculate as to whether the projector was the source of the apparition.

Given the remote location and the relative newness of the technology involved, it was, according to Mason, impossible to prove. Mason may have been referring to Prof Lennon’s experiments with a lantern projector and his conclusion that a projector could not have been used to create the effect described by the witnesses.

Despite that finding, Tuke’s curious little narrative shows that the idea that a lantern projector was the source of the apparition had become well established within a couple of months of the story breaking in January 1880. It has remained a stubborn if unresolved part of the story of Knock.

David Berman, writing in the aggressively anti-clerical Freethinker magazine, raised the issue in advance of Pope John Paul’s visit to Knock in 1979. Berman alleged that the apparition had been engineered by Fr. Cavanagh to deflect from his disagreement with local Fenians over their role in the campaign against landlords and their agents.

In 1994, Melvin Harris claimed to have revealed the secret behind the apparition of the Virgin Mary on a church wall in … Ireland’. Harris was working on TV series in which Arthur C Clarke investigated modern-day apparitions of the Virgin Mary in three distinct locations, one of which was the site of moving statues in Ballinspittle in 1985. Harris recreated Lennon’s experiments with a lantern projector on a set that replicated the site of the apparition in Knock. Despite some complications Harris managed to recreate the “apparition.”

 

That settles that then! Or does it?

Lennon, Tuke, McCarthy and all the other sceptics were, it seems, right all along: the claim that apparition was a fraud perpetrated by the parish priest is supported by the evidence available. So why is Pope Francis visiting Knock and endorsing it as a site of Marian apparition and pilgrimage?

 

ApparitionGable

Photo: Knock Shrine.

 

The first reports of the apparition in Knock sparked a popular religious movement that the church sought to exploit in its bid for power in Ireland. Archbishop McHale and Canon Bourke sought to align the pilgrimage with clerical support for a popular uprising against the landlord class and consolidate its leadership – social and political– of rural Ireland at a local level.

Tuke and McCarthy recognised this and dismissed the apparition as a fraud out of opposition to the increasing power of the Roman Catholic Church in areas like health, education, and public administration in general. The religious/political ambition of the church was manifest in attempts to develop a national Marian shrine on the site of the apparition, replicating the shrine in Lourdes.

John White argues that this caused a public split between  John McEvilly, the Archbishop of Tuam from 1881 to 1902, and the devotional writer Sister Mary Francis Clare Cusack or the Nun of Kenmare as she was known. The resulting scandal set the project back by half a century. The pilgrimage was revived in the 1930s and Knock developed into a major site of pilgrimage for true believers; the ordinary folk who put faith before scepticism no matter how much evidence is produced to support the “Magic Lantern Theory.”

 

And this is the thing: Knock is not about blind faith so much as a popular religious movement. Pope Francis, like Canon Bourke and McHale, before him, is using Knock to visibly align the institutional church with grassroots Catholicism.

The identification of St Joseph as one of the figures in the apparition is interesting in this context. St Joseph was proclaimed  a patron of the Universal Church in 1870 and has served as a model of the ordinary, pious believer; a suitable role model for the pilgrims who have done the rounds in Knock for 139 years.

It looks like the Pope is playing with smoke and mirrors – just as Prof Lennon of Maynooth suspected the creator of the original apparition of doing.

 

Works Cited :

David Berman, 1979, Papal Visit Resurrects Ireland’s Knock Legend, The Freethinker, 99, (October, 1979). 

Paul Carpenter, 2011, Mimesis, Memory, and the Magic Lantern: What Did the Knock Witnesses See? New Hibernia Review / Iris Éireannach Nua, 15(2), 102-120. JSTOR

Edward Chandler, 2001, Photography in Ireland: The Nineteenth Century. Dublin: Edmund Burke.

Fintan Cullen, 2002, Marketing National Sentiment: Lantern Slides of Evictions in Late Nineteenth-Century Ireland. History Workshop Journal, no. 54 (2002): 162-79. JSTOR

Eugene Hynes, 2009, The Virgin in Nineteenth century Ireland. Cork University Press.

Edward Fry, 1899, James Hack Tuke: A Memoir compiled by The Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry. London and New York: MacMillan.

Michael McCarthy, 1902, Priests and People in Ireland.  London & Dublin: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent / Hodges & Figgis. (archive.org)

John McPhilpin, 1880, Apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Chapel of Knock, near Claremorris, Galway Vindicator and Connaught Advertiser, January 14.

John White, 1996, The Cusack Papers; new evidence on the Knock apparition, History Ireland, Issue 4 (Winter 1996), Volume 4. (online)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Skeleton of Cornelius Magrath: the controversy continues …

cornelius_magrath-portrait-de-longhi

Pietro Longhi, 1757, “True portrait of the Giant Cornelio Magrat the Irishman; he came to Venice in the year 1757; born 1st January 1737, he is 7 feet tall and weighs 420 pounds. Painted on commission from the Noble Gentleman Giovanni Grimani dei Servi, Patrician of Venice.” Museo di Rezzonico, Venice. Photograph: Osvaldo Böhm.

The short life of Cornelius Magrath

Cornelius Magrath was born 5 miles from Silvermines in County Tipperary, Ireland, in 1737. During his adolescence, he developed a rare disorder of the pituitary gland that caused some of his bones to grow excessively. Between the ages of 15 and 16 Magrath went from 5 feet to 6 feet 8.75 inches in height. He was later described in the London Magazine for August 1752 as being of gigantic stature, but boyish and clumsily made.

His extraordinary appearance attracted a lot of attention and he was persuaded to exhibit himself. He was put on show in Bristol and London in 1753, before touring extensively in Europe. In 1857 he was in Italy, where his portrait was painted by Longhi (see above). In 1760 he became ill in Flanders and returned to Dublin where he died on May 16th. He was 23 tears of age.

In 7 years Magrath had achieved considerable fame as the ‘Irish Giant’ and his death and dissection quickly became the stuff of legend. In 1833, a report claimed that he died as a result of an injury he sustained while performing as a giant in the Theatre Royal. Numerous other legends grew up around the ‘capture’ of his body by anatomists in Dublin University, Trinity College (TCD).

maag-small-copy

A promotional print engraved by Maag in Germany in 1756 to promote appearances by Magrath. This image has been produced from the negative of a photograph made by Daniel J. Cunningham in 1891. Courtesy of the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

In 1890, Daniel J. Cunningham’s set out to establish the truth about Magrath’s stature and dispel some of the myth’s about his short life. Cunningham presented a report to the Royal Irish Academy in 1891, which remains the definitive account of the man and his skeleton. Cunningham confirmed that Magrath suffered from acromegaly and presented evidence that he was “positively deformed” as a result of this condition.

He was not the “well-built, proportioned, straight-limbed man” with pleasing and regular features as represented by Maag in 1756 (above). Swanzy built on Cunningham’s research and published a report in 1893 that confirmed significant deformation of Magrath’s eye sockets.  This is recorded by  in Longhi in his 1757 portrait, along with the disabling condition of “knock-knee” that was described by Cunningham.

In 1902, huge crowds attended a lecture on his skeleton that was given by Cunningham in Belfast. Curiosity in Magrath remains just as strong today judging by the current controversy over the retention by TCD of his skeleton. The controversy kicked off on the History Show on RTE Radio 1 and was picked up by chat show host Joe Duffy who argued that TCD should bury the skeleton of Cornelius Magrath because it had been ‘body snatched’ and his skeleton put on public display without his consent.

The Skeleton of Cornelius Magrath

The Skeleton of Cornelius Magrath is no longer on public display but is still held by the School of Anatomy in TCD. It is the most famous item in a historic collection of anatomy specimens, records, and instruments that is held in the ‘Old’ Anatomy Building. The building was decommissioned in 2014 and the collection is being resolved as part of post-grad research programme managed jointly by the School of Medicine TCD, Maynooth University, Kimmage Development Studies Centre, and the Irish Research Council.

Anthropo lab 2016 P1180364 600 dpi

Ciarán Walsh reconstructing the skull measuring device developed by Daniel J. Cunningham in the 1890s. The “Dublin Craniometer” is one of a number of anthropometrical instruments that were discovered when the ‘Old’ Anatomy building in Trinity College Dublin was being decommissioned in 2014. The skull, incidentally, is a plastic model. Photo: Ciarán Walsh.

I am employed as a full-time researcher on the project and resolving ethical issues relating to the retention of human remains is a major part of the work in hand. Indeed, the research proposal had to pass rigorous ethical approval procedures in Maynooth University, the School of Medicine TCD, and the IRC before I could get access to the ‘old’ Anatomy building and the collections held therein, which include the skeleton of Cornelius Magrath.

To bury or not to bury, that is the debate.

The Magrath “case” is interesting because there is no evidence that the body snatching story, however entertaining, is true. The only contemporary account of his death states simply that “Upon death, his body was carried to the Dissecting House,” but that account was probably written by either Robert Robinson, Professor of Anatomy in TCD, or Dr. George Cleghorn, the University anatomist (see Cunningham’s 1891 report to the Royal Irish Academy).

What we can say with some certainty is that Magrath died of a wasting disease (phthisis) and it is clear from the Robinson/Cleghorn account that he was receiving medical attention at the time of his death. It records that Magrath’s “complexion was miserably pale and sallow; his pulses very quick at times for a man of his extraordinary height; and his legs were swollen.” Elsewhere, it states that his pulse beat almost sixty times a minutes “on his arrival here.”  It sounds like Magrath was being cared for in the School of Medicine TCD when he died.

The body snatching legend, best described by Hooper,  has it that Magrath was being waked when medical students, egged on by Robinson, spiked the porter and made off with his body, which was immediately dissected in secret. Such a sensational body snatching could not have escaped notice and, furthermore, the dissection was both public knowledge and uncontroversial. Historians of anatomy in TCD have always believed that the body was paid for by Cleghorn and that the acquisition of the body was legitimate and ethical by the standards of the day. The problem here is that there is no documentary evidence of Magrath having consented to dissection or the permanent display of his skeleton.

Comparative Anatomy / Anthropological Museum, MS10961-1_22

The Anthropological Laboratory in TCD in 1891, from a cyanotype or blueprint of a  photograph taken by Charles R. Browne. The laboratory ceased operations in 1903 and its collections were reorganised in 1948. Courtesy of the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

That brings us to the contemporary issue of retention or burial. The report of the Working Group on Human Remains in Museum Collections (WGHR), published in 2003,  set out public policy in relation to British Museums. The authors of the report acknowledged that human remains in collections “represent a unique and irreplaceable resource for the legitimate pursuance of scientific and other research” (p. 28)  but concluded that collections of human remains in museums should be subject to the sort of regulatory frameworks being developed for health authorities and hospitals in Britain (p. 81).

One of its principal finding was the need to remove legislative barriers to repatriation or burial by British museums, effectively making the ethical disposal of human remains in museum collections its default position (p. 20, para. 58). In 2004 the introduction of the Human Tissue Act allowed nine national museums to return human remains under 1,000 years old, where they consider it appropriate to do so. The British Museum rejected an application for repatriation in 2012  on grounds other than those provided for in the legislation, which illustrates the complexity of the issues involved and the need to consider claims for repatriation or burial on a case by case basis.

In terms of regulation in Ireland, the Human Tissue Bill has been stalled since 2013 and the Inspector of Anatomy, appointed by the Medical Council in the interim, has oversight of the ‘Old’ Anatomy collections in TCD. This leaves the burial of Magrath’s remains at the discretion of the college authorities; which means that any decision will have to deal with public perception as to the “morality” of retaining identifiable human remains in collections of scientific material. That is deeply problematic, and Duffy’s attempt to frame the issue in body snatching folklore is distorting what should be a valuable and timely debate.

References: 

British Museum,2012, Request for Repatriation of Human Remains to the Torres Strait Islands, Australia. Online document: http://www.britishmuseum.org/about_us/management/human_remains/repatriation_to_torres_strait.aspx

Cunningham, D. (1887). The Skeleton of the Irish Giant, Cornelius MagrathThe Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, 29, 553-612. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30078824

Department of the Taoiseach, LEGISLATION PROGRAMME FOR AUTUMN SESSION 2013, Published:  18th September, 2013: http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/irish/Foilseacháin/Foilseacháin_2013/LEGISLATION_PROGRAMME_FOR_AUTUMN_SESSION_2013.html

Hooper, A. (1987). Dublin Anatomy in the 17th and 18th CenturiesDublin Historical Record, 40(4), 122-132. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30100813

Human Tissue Act 2004, UK: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/30/contents

Report of The Working Group on Human Remains, November 2003,Dept. for Culture Media and Sport, Great Britain: http://www.museumsbund.de/fileadmin/geschaefts/dokumente/Leitfaeden_und_anderes/DCMS_Working_Group_Report_2003.pdf

Swanzy, H. (1893). Note on Defective Vision and Other Ocular Derangements in Cornelius Magrath, the Irish Giant. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (1889-1901), 3, 524-528. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20490478

Trinity College, Dublin, 2016, The Academic and Artistic Collections – a summary: First produced February 2010; contact and website updates March 2016: http://www.tcd.ie/artcollections/assets/pdf/TCD%20Academic%20and%20Artistic%20Collections%20summary.pdf

Jane W. Shackleton: Pioneering Photographer and Unsung Hero of the Gaelic Revival

 Bridget Mullins, Inis Mór, The Aran Islands, 1895.

Bridget Mullins stands proud and visibly pregnant beside an impressive example of a west of Ireland spinning wheel. Crude stone cottages, drystone walls and bare limestone flags provide a barren backdrop to an image that combines industry and motherhood. Her dress proclaims her ethnicity. This is the Aran Islands. Dun Aonghusa, the ancient fort of the Fir Bolg, is just about visible on the horizon. The year is 1895.

Jane W. Shackleton asked Mullins to pose with the spinning wheel outdoors, in front of a cottage. Apart from any technical requirements – stand cameras with slow lenses and negatives that required long exposures in bright daylight – this was an increasingly conventional way of photographing women in the west of Ireland. The encounter between these two women was, however, a rather unconventional and almost auto-ethnographic moment that produced a complex set of subjectivities: the bourgeois wife of a miller and the peasant wife of a tenant farmer, one Anglo-Irish and one Gaelic-Irish; the naturalised colonist and the colonised native, one Quaker and the other Roman Catholic.

It was also a practical and interested transaction. Mullins traded her ethnicity for access to a technology of representation that was way beyond her reach, economically speaking. She paid Shackleton for a copy of the photograph with a pair of hand-knit socks. Why? The cachet of having a photographic portrait is one reason but there is another reason why photographs were highly valued in place like Aran. Many islanders had emigrated to the United States and a photographic portrait, however framed, would have been an extraordinarily valuable and tangible token of affiliation for separated families (Daithí de Mórdha’s work on the family photographs of the Blasket Islanders is worth looking at in this context). Shackleton, for her part, was trading in antiquarian photography and needed the authentic, documentary ethnicity embodied in Bridget Mullins.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Source: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland

Victorians in the Field

The trade between Shackleton and Mullins was much more than some sort of “bead exchange” between a tourist and a native in an exotic location. Shackleton was not a tourist. The photograph was taken during a field trip by the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland and the Society’s documentation of the excursion – from the metropolis to the ‘wild’ west – shows the extent to which photography had become integrated into fieldwork and social documentary practices of representation. This was the height of the ‘survey’ movement, an attempt by photographic and historical societies to record the traditional aspects of society throughout the UK before they were swept aside by rapid modernisation. Special attention was paid to the ‘Celtic Fringe’ and the spectacular nature of the Aran Islands had been highlighted by Alfred Cort Haddon following his first visit to the islands in 1890. The rapid expansion of industrialised and commodified photography into the middle classes in the 1880s and 1890s was a key element in this movement. The Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland accumulated 20,000 photographic images in its search the for traces of past civilisation in Ireland, a collection that has only recently been recovered and restored (see RSAI). One of the photographs taken featured Alfred Cort Haddon lounging against the a wall in the complex of ruins known as the Seven Churches. Haddon and Shackleton were connected.

65 RSAI Haddon 113_001_3

Source: Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland

Shackleton and Haddon

Shackleton visited Aran for the first time in 1891, just as Haddon was getting the Irish Ethnographic Survey off the ground. They knew one another and both were members of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, a key part of Haddons network. Haddon promoted the involvement of women in field clubs and it a proficient photographer and antiquarian like Shackleton would hardly have escaped his attention. It raises the question, was her trip to Aran prompted by Haddon? There is an early photograph of men carrying a curragh that feature in the collections assembled by both Haddon and Shackleton. The authorship is unclear but this suggests that, at the very least, they were exchanging copies / slides of photographs taken in Aran.

Haddon was very different to Shackleton as far as motivation goes. Haddon was a ‘Headhunter,’ an ethnologist using craniometry to map the ancient migrations “of man” and their traces in contemporary populations. Shackleton was a humanist and her photography brought the people of Aran and their society into sharp focus against a background of political turbulence and contested identities.

Erin with Harp

Éire by Jerome Connor (1874 -1943) , Merrion Square, Dublin, erected 1976. Source: Greatacre

Mullins as Mother Ireland

The portrait of Bridget Mullins is a carefully composed and complex study of womanhood in the pre-literate and pre-capitalist society of white “savages” that lived in the most primitive part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1895. The fact that Mullins is visibly pregnant is one of the most remarkable features of this photograph and, indeed photography from tis period. I don’t know of any other Victorian photograph that represents pregnancy so explicitly. It has to be deliberate: this is Mother Ireland in the flesh. Replace the spinning wheel with a harp and you have Erin, the most enduring image produced by the Young Irelander movement of cultural nationalists that emerged after 1848, the year of revolutions in Europe. Shackleton has reified and radicalised the idea of being Irish by transforming the way women like Mullins were made visible in the metropolis.

The photograph of Bridget Mullins was copied as a slide – the heavy black border shows that this a reproduction of a glass lantern (gas powered projector) slide – and presented with supporting commentary in “magic lantern” shows in Dublin. These slideshows were hugely popular but they were more than an elitist living room entertainment for the Anglo-Irish bourgeois. This ‘technology of representation’ was transforming social, cultural and political campaigns It is hard to ignore the impact that these images of Aran must have had on the Gaelic Revival, the start of which is generally associated with Douglas Hyde’s call for the de-Anglicisation of Irish society in 1892. Shackleton’s empathy with and concern for the islanders is evident in her lecture notes. Her representation of Bridget Mullins in the performance of those slideshows must have really challenged attitudes to the recalcitrant ‘primitivism’ of the ‘native’ Irish, bringing the validity of the colonial administration of Ireland into question into the bargain. The connection between this enhanced visibility – and the visualities it created – and the increased focus on the “real’ Ireland to the West that was such a feature of the Gaelic Revival has to be more than co-incidence. It could be Shackletons legacy as a social documentary photographer.

Original glass plate negatives of photographs around Ireland by J.M. Synge. Previous reproductions were published in a book titled My Wallet, in 1971.

Nóra and Máire Nic Donnchadha, Inis Meáin, by John Millington Synge (c1899). Courtesy of the Board of Trinity College Dublin.

Conclusion: And What About Synge?

Whether or not Shackleton’s slideshows came to the attention of an amateur photographer called John Millington Synge is not clear. Dublin always was a small place and it is hard to imagine that John Millington Synge – whose uncle had been a pastor (and a controversial one at that) on Aran – was not aware of the interest in Aran in “learned” societies like the Antiquaries. Synge arrived in he Aran Islands from Paris in the summer of 1898 and immediately bought a second hand ‘falling plate’ camera that he used to record / document life on the islands. They were meant to illustrate his account of life on the island. His account of the time he spent living amongst the peasants was to eclipse Shackleton, Haddon and many other accounts of life in the islands. Ironically, the significance of Synge’s photographs was overlooked until the centenary of his death in 2009, when they were belatedly recognised as a turning point in the imagination of Irishness, a cultural turn on the eve of revolution. (www.curator.ie / IMMA)

Likewise Shackleton’s singular contribution to the Gaelic Revival has been seriously undervalued. According to Christiaan Corlett  Jane W. Shackleton was responsible for the most comprehensive photographic documentation of the Aran Islands at the end of the 19th century but her career as a photographer was virtually unknown until Corlett published a collection of her photographs in 2012. Why? Does the answer lie in a gendered history of photography or in the victory of the romantic primitivism of Synge over antiquarianism and all other perspectives?

In search of the ‘Starving West’: TV series on social documentary photography

Uploaded by www.curator.ie: a reproduction of a photograph of an impoverish family huddled in cabin in Connemara in 1898. It is entitled

A starving Irish family from Carraroe, County Galway during the Famine . Source: Virginia University.

About 10 years go I came across this photograph. The caption suggests that it was taken during the Famine of 1845-9 in Ireland.  It wasn’t. True, it is very similar to the scenes recorded in cabins throughout the west of Ireland and graphic illustrations of such scenes were published in illustrated newspapers at the time. There is no record, however, of any photograph of people dying of starvation in the 1845-9 famine.  Indeed a photograph like this would have been impossible in the early stages of photography – invented less than a decade before the famine. As a result he photograph has been dismissed by some people as a fake, the harsh pool of light suggesting a studio staging.

STARVING WEST P1100442

I set out to look for the original and test its authenticity. I never found it, but I found the next best thing -the original document in which the photograph was first published.  The photograph is entitled ‘A Sick Family Carraroe’ and is one of 18 photographs that were published in a pamphlet entitled  ‘Relief of Distress in the West and South of Ireland, 1898.’ The photographs were taken in April during an inspection of conditions in Connemara by Thomas L. Esmonde, Inspector of the Manchester Committee. He was reacting to reports of famine in Conamara. He inspected a dozen houses in which he found people lying on the floor, covered with rags and old sacks and barely able to move from a combination of influenza and hunger.

12 The Starving west

The search for the photograph became the basis of an idea for a TV series on social documentary photography or, to put it another way, a social history of documentary photography in Ireland in the 19th century. I pitched the idea to a producer and a broadcaster in 2011 and funding was eventually secured from the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in 2014 for a six part series based on my research. TG4 will begin  broadcasting Trid an Lionsa or ‘Through the Lens’ tomorrow Sunday 25 October 2015.

I haven’t been involved in in the production itself, just the research into historical social documentary photography and the people who work in this area. This material has been “translated into television” by Cathal Watters (Oíche na Gaoithe Móire) and follows the TG4 controversial format of presenter driven, on-the-road info-tainment. (http://wp.me/p56Bmf-5g).

I have no idea what to expect. Like a colleague I will be watching from behind the couch … hoping!  It’ll be interesting to see how the balance between a social history of documentary photography and ‘factual’ entertainment works out. I know some key “voices” were excluded but that is the unenviable task of a producer. Either way it promises be an intriguing televisual event and, at the very least, it should create an awareness of the rich resource that exists in photographic archives and collections around the country.

Related posts:

Jane W. Shackleton, Pioneering Photographer and Unsung Hero of the Gaelic Revival

Alfred Cort Haddon: Haddon and the Aran Islands

Famine Photography: Photographs were taken: documenting the second famine in Connemara

In memory of Mick ‘The Iron Man’ Murphy

Mick 'The Iron Man' Murphy by Barry McCarthy from the exhibition 'Blood, Sweat and Gears,' 2008

Mick ‘The Iron Man’ Murphy by Barry McCarthy from the exhibition ‘Blood, Sweat and Gears,’ 2008.

I have just learned of the death of Mick Murphy of Cahersiveen in Co. Kerry. Mick was known fondly as ‘The Iron Man’ because of his exploits in a celebrated bicycle race in 1958. Aidan O’Connor, writing in The Kerryman newspaper described Mick’s extraordinary Life:

Mick made a living as a spalpeen and a circus performer. After winning the 1958 Rás, Mick returned to Kerry to work in local quarry, breaking stones with a crowbar and sledge hammer. All the while, the Iron Man was completing daily training routines of 100-mile cycles.

Aged just 27 years, Mick Murphy retired and took the boat to England where he worked as a builder, road maker, a carnival act, boxer and a wrestler.

Mick’s training was as unconventional as his lifestyle. Having read about the important of a high protein diet, Mick drank cow’s blood and ate raw meat, well aware that this was regarded with “horror” by the people of Cahersiveen. The legend that was the ‘Iron Man’ was the starting point for an exhibition that celebrated the 50th anniversary of his victory in the Rás in 1958. The exhibition consisted of still photography by Barry McCarthy interviews recorded by film maker Chris Hurley. The impact of that exhibition is captured in Sean Mac an tSithig’s report (above) which was recorded for the main evening news.

Mick Murphy was one of the most remarkable people I worked with in Siamsa, a true folk hero. Following the broadcast of Seán’s film a lot of men who had gone through similar experiences came to the gallery and spoke movingly of their lives as emigrants and their love of cycling.

Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

Monumental Errors

The problem with Public Art, Michael Warren's sculpture

The controversial Gateway sculpture that has cast long shadows over the streets of Dun Laoghaire for six years was removed towards the end of April 2009. The monument was dismissed as an eyesore by many. (comment on Flickr)

The problem with “public” art

The above post on Flicker brutally sums up the conflict over contemporary works of art that are placed in public places by local authorities and other agencies. In this case the sculpture, by the respected Irish artist Michael  Warren, was commissioned by “developer Eddie Sweeny under the Per Cent for Art Scheme, and erected in 2002 close to the Pavilion retail and theatre complex and Dún Laoghaire’s 19th-century county hall” ( Irish Times). The Per Cent For Art Scheme allows for a percentage of the cost of public capital works to be spent on an artistic feature.

The sculpture was removed in 2009 during work on the new library in Dún Laoghaire  but it was not replaced when this work was completed. It appears that it is being ‘returned’ to the artist in exchange for another work in a deal brokered by Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLRCC), although the Council declined to comment on the exchange” according to the report by Fiona Gartland.

This PDF is part of

Richard Serra, 1981. Tilted Arc ( Source)

Part of the problem was Warren’s choice of material. Corten steel is an industrial material that became popular in large scale architectural and sculptural projects in the 1970s. It suited outdoor because it forms a corrosion resistant surface or patina and, its angular, industrial look was an important part of its aesthetic appeal. Its use was pioneered by the American artist Richard Serra  in the 1970s with a series of site specific sculptures that are monumental in scale and strikingly industrial in contrast to their surroundings: in the way that Michael Warren’s scupture contrasts with “Dún Laoghaire’s 19th-century county hall.”

Controversy was inevitable. Richard Serra’s Tilted Arc was erected in the Federal Plaza in New York City in 1981 but, following a public vote, the sculpture was dismantled and the material used for scrap. Serra wasn’t happy: “To remove the work is to destroy it” he said. Warren’s scuplture won’t be scrapped, it’s on its way to an alternative site in the UK and the site specific references implied by the title will be lost.

Eilís O'Connell, Great Wall of Kinsale, 1988 (Photo: Southern Star).

Eilís O’Connell, Great Wall of Kinsale, 1988 (Photo: Southern Star).

Warren isn’t the first artist to run up against local authorities and their idea of “public” art. In 1989 the Arts Council wanted to promote public art as a showcase for contemporary sculpture.  It commissioned The Great Wall of Kinsale from Eilís O’Connell at a cost of £22,000, making it the biggest  public art commission to date. The Arts Council had “awarded” the sculpture to the town in recognition of its recent success in the Tidy Towns Composition.

It was an ambitious project and the influence of Serra was obvious, both in the use of Corten steel and the imposing scale of the piece. This was a bold statement, a statement that was meant to define “public” art in terms of contemporary, professional arts practice.It was lost on the members of Kinsale Urban District Council (KUDC). A campaign was begun to remove the sculpture. It was a nasty, divisive campaign. I was covering it for CIRCA Art Magazine (Issue 46) and witnessed at first hand the bullying tactics of people campaigning against the perceived elitism of the professional art community and its attempts to impose its values on the plain people of Ireland. I was also involved in a public art “education” campaign funded by the Arts Council.  It was a close fought campaign and a decision by UDC to remove the sculpture was narrowly deferred after a  Kathleen Watkins, a member of the  Arts Council, personally addressed the UDC on the evening that it was expected to vote to “destroy” the sculpture.

Protesting Art: Protesters outside Limerick City Gallery of Art, from Sean Lynch's 'rocky Road To Dublin' project 2011/12.

Protesting Art: protesters outside Limerick City Gallery of Art, from Sean Lynch’s ‘Rocky Road To Dublin’ archival project  and exhibition 2011/12 (Sean Lynch).

That’s the good news. The UDC began to treat the sculpture as a public hazard, tampering with the sculpture to prevent people interacting with it (climbing on it)  and carried out changes to make it more acceptable – painting over the Corten steel.  O’Connell has produced  The Contemporary Condition of The Great Wall of Kinsale for Seán Lynch’s Rocky Road To Dublin project in 2011, an exhibition that documents controversies that rocked the Irish art world in the 1970s and 1980s mostly ( an exhibition guide is available here). O’Connell also told the Irish Times that the sculpture was destroyed by Kinsale UDC in contravention of the Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works when it  painted the surface and added water features, railings, flower pots and barriers against the artist’s wishes.

30 years on, little has changed, except for the level of opposition to the destruction of public artworks by leading Irish artists. The campaign to remove what is left of O’Connell’s sculpture continues intermittently and Michael Warren’s “Gateway” has been removed with little or no controversy. Significantly, Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) has refused to comment, despite the fact that it has an arts office thats administers a public art scheme and is responsible for promoting contemporary arts in Dun Laoghaire Rathdown.

REPRO FREE Haley O'Sullivan 2013 Rose of Tralee with New Zealand Rose Lisa Bazalo , Western Canada Catherine Joyce , Donegal Rose Tamara Payne , Texas Rose Cyndi Crowell , Washington Rose Allison Wetterauw and Perth Sinead Lehan . Roses and minister Donohoe TD arive to officially unveiled the Roses sculpture on the Tralee Bypass today . Photo By : Domnick Walsh / Eye Focus LTD © Tralee Co Kerry Ireland Phone Mobile 087 / 2672033 L/Line 066 71 22 981 E/mail - info@dwalshphoto.ie www.dwalshphoto.com PRESS INFO - Minister Donohoe unveils Roses Sculpture on Tralee Bypass . Minister for Transport, Tourism & Sport, Mr. Paschal Donohoe TD officially unveiled the Roses sculpture on the Tralee Bypass on Monday, August 18th 2014.ÔThe RosesÕ sculpture which consists of three red roses on their stems was created by Mayo sculptor, Rory Breslin, as part of the Percent for Art Scheme for the Tralee Bypass. Kerry County Council also provided funding for the project.Situated beside the roundabout linking the Tralee Bypass to the N22 Killarney road, the Roses sculpture highlights the well-known symbol of the Tralee area. It also links to the famous Rose of Tralee song which speaks of William MulchinockÕs love for Mary OÕConnor, who was employed a maid by the Mulchinock family.Speaking at the official unveiling of the sculpture, Minister Donohoe congratulated all involved in both the construction of the Tralee Bypass and also in the creation of the sculpture. The Minister pointed to the success of the Tralee Bypass in diverting through traffic from Tralee town centre and reducing travel times for motorists in the area.Speaking at the unveiling Minister Donohoe said: ÔIt is important that we continue to support our artists through the Precent for Art scheme, which allows for a portion of the cost of a public infrastructure project to be ring-fenced for the commissioning of a work of art. ÒIconic installations such as this very quickly become a symbol of the area, and t

Unveiling the “Roses” sculpture located on the newly opened Tralee bypass .
Photo By : Domnick Walsh / Eye Focus LTD ©

Has Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council turned its back on ambitious public art works like “Gateway”?  Or is it staying quite in the face of opposition from elected representatives? It’s  hard to say but the destruction of Michael Warren’s sculpture raises – again – the issue of what constitutes “public” art.  The experience around the country is that local authorities and their arts offices – effectively operating as subsidiaries of the Arts Council – are promoting a particular type of public art, a populist strategy that has seen the proliferation of monumental works or “statues” that have little to do with contemporary Irish art. You could call it the ‘Molly Malone’ effect, public art that has more to do with tourism than art. The recently unveiled  “Roses” sculpture (a €70,000 commission) is typical of this trend, a trend that goes against the original objectives of the Per Cent for Art Scheme and represents a monumental failure of local authorities in respect of their remit to promote the arts a county level.

Is it art? some monumental errors in Kerry

5881729369_7867b0ec2b_b

Town Park, Tralee.

cropped

Tralee

images-1

Charlie Chaplin in Waterville