Madam, - In his Viewpoint article (Weekend Review, November 2nd) Bernard O'Donoghue states that the Field Day Anthology of Irish Writing (vols. i-iii, 1991) achieved "an unpredentally full representation of the Irish language". I fail to see how he can make such a claim. In fact, the contents of FDA (1991) give the impression that:
(a) all that was written in Irish between c.600 and 1200 was a handful of belletristic lyrics and prose passages;
(b) no legal, toponymic, historiographical or gnomic writing exists in Irish for that period;
(c) nothing was written in Irish between c. 1200 and 1550;
(d) no love or court poetry was written in Irish in the medieval period, no fiction, no philosophical or medical tracts; no texts were translated from other languages to Irish;
(e) only a handful of lyrics, some love-songs and a few prose texts were written in Irish between 1550 and 1900;
(f) only one prose text was written in Irish in the 18th century, none in the 19th; no sermons were delivered in Irish, no political tracts were written, no political speeches were recorded, no personal letters were ever written in Irish.
The general pattern is encapsulated most vividly in the following statistics:
(a) Early and Middle Irish Literature (c.600-1600) is allocated 60 pp (vol.i, 1-60);
(b) Latin Writing in Ireland (c.400-1200) is allocated 79 pp (vol. i, 61-140);
(c) Literature in Irish 1600-1800 is allocated 52 pp ( vol. i, 274-326);
(d) Jonathan Swift is allocated 67 pp (vol. i, 327-394);
(e) Anglo-Irish Verse 1675-1825 is allocated 104 pp (vol. i, 395-499).
The very fact that Swift is more fully represented than all literature in Irish in the period 1600-1800 or that Anglo-Irish Verse 1675-1825 (the verse of a minority) is deemed worthy of more representation than a millennium of writing in Irish makes my point.
Indeed, any foreigner perusing FDA (1991) could not but conclude that English was always the primary medium of writing in Ireland, whereas the status of Irish was ever ephemeral and marginal. And although one is very reluctant to criticise such a monumental project, one which owes its conception and execution to the unique brilliance and intellectual vigour of Séamus Deane, nevertheless one must point out that the end product - the 'meta-narrative' - is, whatever the intention, a classic colonising exercise in appropriation and marginalisation: tá leabhar ag Deane den Bhéarla is beagáinín den Ghaeilge tríd!
It is true that FDA (2002), particularly in vol.iv, does attempt to address the under-representation of writing in Irish and to redress it. Nevertheless, the stated concern of the editors to "to illustrate women's lives as expressed through both of the languages spoken and written in Ireland" (vol.iv, p.xxxvi) is unfortunately, not realised. Once again, large areas of Irish life and experience are represented solely in a monolingual (.i. English) configuration. A few examples:
1. According to FDA, "The Women's Movement in the Republic of Ireland, 1968-80" and "The Women's Movement and Women Politicians In The Republic of Ireland, 1980-2000" (vol. v, 177-319) was a completely monolingual movement; likewise the "Women Politicians" who contributed to that movement were all monolinguals; the major issues of public discourse and debate in Ireland in that period were conducted entirely in English; apparently no word of Irish was ever spoken or written on these matters.
2. When sexuality eventually raised its ugly head in Ireland, sometime around 1685 it seems (Sexuality, 1685-2001, vol. iv, 755-1190), it found expression for the most part only through the voices of monolingual English speakers/writers; sexuality (or its literary realisation) is, apparently, virtually unknown in Irish: although over 200 items are presented in this section, only four are culled from Irish-language sources.
3. Writing in Irish, it seems, has little or nothing to say concerning Women in Irish Society 1200-2000 (vol v, 461-764): of the 180 items presented in this section only four represent Irish-language sources.
4. Of the 40 items appertaining to The Political Writings and Public Voices of Women, c. 1500-1850 (vol. v, 6-68) only three (dealing with the period 1600-1650) are taken from Irish-language sources.
5. Even when Irish language sources are utilised, they are presented, on several occasions, only in an English translation. This unexplained editorial strategy should be totally unacceptable in this day and age as it constitutes a distortion of the historical record.
One cannot but agree with Bernard O'Donoghue when he hopes that FDA vol. vi will eventually appear. Is it asking too much that the next volume(s) will at last come round to presenting the breadth, the variety, and the vitality of writing in Irish - the primary medium of writing in Ireland for most of her history. - Yours, etc.,
BREANDÁN Ó BUACHALLA,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.