Essay on Trajectory of Irish Historiography

How did twentieth-century historians interpret the period known as the Great Famine?

The history of any nation is an integral part of establishing sovereignty and recognition on a global scale. Certain events or individuals dominate these narratives and can be based on triumph or atrocity. As such, the period of the 1840s has become a key feature in what could be called the ‘Irish Story’. It was a period of widespread hunger and disease, with the obvious catalyst lying in a blight that decimated a staple crop that had to some extent become over-relied on. Nonetheless, the circumstances surrounding the onset of the potato blight became an extremely controversial historical topic. Retrospectively, it was an epoch where Ireland was almost halfway through their union with Britain and had been significantly impacted by over a century of Penal Laws. Consequently, the popular narrative of events had been heavily influenced by nationalist rhetoric. However, a significant point in Irish historiography would challenge many accepted nationalist myths and begin to construct alternative ways of understanding the Irish story. A conflict of popular and traditional consensus against new historical methodologies would yield debates that would expand and hinder our understanding of many aspects of Irish history, including the Famine. This essay will assess the trajectory of Famine historiography concerning the controversial question of responsibility. In doing so, firstly, a brief discussion on the origins of the narrative became widely accepted following independence. Following this, the attention will turn to the emergence of new historical methods which would change the face of Irish history. Then, the focus will turn to two publications that were significant for this topic. Furthermore, the discussion will focus on a period of revised interpretations. Lastly, the discussion will center around interpretations that emerged following this period of revisionism and more modern accounts.

Contemporary understandings of the Famine were mainly articulated by individuals of political concern in an era where propaganda was essential for shaping consensus. Therefore, narratives being projected during and after the events served as tools in the political sphere, especially for Irish nationalists. Staunch nationalists such as Isaac Butt and John Mitchel were central in the narrative that was constructed in the decades following the events.[footnoteRef:2] For example, Mitchel quite overtly directs blame at the British government in 1854, in his Jail Journal.[footnoteRef:3] Mitchel’s attitude towards the events can then be summed up in his widely used quote, ‘the Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine’.[footnoteRef:4] Essentially, Mitchel, and many others like him, believed that the British government’s inaction – failure to close the ports, relief efforts, allocation of finances, and land and property policies – was the reason a crop failure could produce the crisis it did.[footnoteRef:5] The result of such narratives could certainly be seen to have increased any resentment harbored towards British authority. Indeed, individuals such as Mitchel were accused of exploiting the events for exactly that.[footnoteRef:6] Moreover, British narratives could be seen to have done little to alleviate this resentment. Justifications based on divine Providence and Malthusian ideology could be seen only to bolster nationalist rhetoric. Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Sir Charles Trevelyan, for instance, wrote ‘the great evil with which we have to contend’ is ‘not the physical evil of famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse and turbulent character of the [Irish] people’.[footnoteRef:7] However, there were alternative understandings put forth. For example, the first scholarly work on the Famine, by Canon John O’Rourke – unlike Mitchel’s, this was derived mainly from eyewitness accounts – emphasizes how significant the split between Daniel O’Connell and the Young Irelanders had been, stating ‘had they remained united, they might have obtained means of saving the lives of thousands of their countrymen’.[footnoteRef:8] Nonetheless, it was the nationalist narrative that came to precedence and would be absorbed into scholars like Douglas Hyde and Eoin MacNeill who would be central to constructing the Irish history in the newly established Free State which would evolve into a popular national consensus.[footnoteRef:9] Indeed, it is vital to critically analyze and recognize the political agendas behind contemporary accounts in order to discern and construct an accurate framework, and this is exactly what was set out upon from the late 1930s. [2: Isaac Butt was the first leader of the Home Rule Party and produced a work titled The Famine in the Land (Dublin 1847). ] [3: John Mitchel, Jail journal, or, Five years in British prisons: commenced on board the Shearwater steamer…(New York, 1854), pp. 17-18. ] [4: Idem, The Last Conquest of Ireland (Perhaps) (Glasgow, 1876), p. 219.] [5: Ibid, p.209] [6: Mary Daly, ‘Revisionism and Irish History: The Great Famine’, in D. George Boyce and Alan O’Day (eds), The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy (London, 1996), p. 72.] [7: Quoted in Cecil Woodham-Smith, The Great Hunger (London, 1962), p. 156.] [8: Canon John O’Rourke, The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847, with Notices of Earlier Famines (Dublin, 1875), p. 89.] [9: Douglas Hyde quoted in Robert Welch (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature (Oxford, 1996), p. 368, on John Mitchel, ‘he would make a rebel out of me if I weren’t one already’. For more information on the construction of Irish history around this period see John Hutchinson, The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism: The Gaelic Revival and the Creation of the Irish Nation State (London, 1987), or, Sean O Tuama (ed.), The Gaelic League Idea (Dublin, 1972), or, John O'Callaghan, Teaching Irish Independence: History in Irish Schools, 1922-72 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2009).]

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

By the late 1930s, new historical methodologies had emerged which saw the establishment of the Irish Committee of Historical Sciences and the Irish Historical Studies journal, which would usher in a new beginning for Irish history. Taking influence from Britain and Europe, T.W. Moody and R.D. Edwards, stressed the importance of this new ‘value-free’ way of doing history, stating how it would be ‘constructive and instrumental’ for the Irish story.[footnoteRef:10] As such, many new interpretations of significant aspects of Irish history would surface throughout the proceeding decades. In many cases, these new interpretations challenged the nationalist narrative of the Irish story that was held so strongly by so many.[footnoteRef:11] Therefore, the ‘revisionist’ appellation was applied to anyone who produced work that seemed to eliminate any nationalistic elements of Irish history.[footnoteRef:12] On the other hand, those individuals who rejected the revised interpretations earned the epithet ‘traditionalist’ or ‘anti-revisionist’.[footnoteRef:13] Consequently, an era of severe polarisation amongst Irish historians would develop. However, when put into context, the gradual intensification of this polarization can be understood somewhat. As violence and unrest become increasingly common, especially in the north, some historians may have felt it their duty to omit any nationalistic characteristics from their work.[footnoteRef:14] Indeed, many were said to have this exact agenda.[footnoteRef:15] Similarly, those who refused to downplay such features were accused, in extreme cases, of justifying and encouraging the actions of the IRA.[footnoteRef:16] This practice of bi-categorization would prove to have significant implications for the development of Irish historiography. Huge debates would ensue, such as how the Easter Rising would be remembered, the land wars, or indeed, the Famine. Thus, for a long period of time, the scope of Irish history was limited by this process of ‘traditionalist’ or ’revisionist’ labeling. A clear example of this concerning the Famine is the publication of two texts in 1956 and 1962. [10: Ciaran Brady, ‘‘Constructive and Instrumental’: The Dilemma of Ireland’s First ‘New Historians’’, in Idem (ed), Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism (Dublin, 1994), p. 4. ] [11: A good example of how important the nationalist narrative was for some is Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Modern Ireland’, in Ibid, pp. 191 – 216.] [12: This is discussed in depth in ibid, or in D. George Boyce and Alan O’Day, ‘Introduction: ‘Revisionism’ and the ‘revisionist controversy’, in Idem (eds), The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy (London, 1996), pp. 1 – 14.] [13: Ibid.] [14: As stated by F.S.L. Lyons, ‘In the present situation, with the dire past still overhanging the dire present, the need to go back to fundamentals and consider once more the meaning of independence, asserts itself with almost intolerable urgency. The theories of revolution, the theories of nationality, and the theories of history, which have brought Ireland to its present pass, cry out for re-examination, and the time is ripe to break with the great enchantment that for too long has made myth so much more congenial than reality, in ‘The Meaning of Independence’ in Brian Farrell (ed), The Irish Parliamentary Tradition (Dublin, 1973), p. 223. ] [15: Christine Kinealy, ‘Beyond Revisionism: Reassessing the Great Irish Famine’, History Ireland, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 29-30 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27724290) [accessed: 11-1-19].] [16: O’Callahan, Teaching, p. 36.]

The Famine had been a neglected aspect of Irish history in the early decades of independence, with only a mere five articles published in the first hundred issues of Irish Historical Studies.[footnoteRef:17] As such, on the eve of the Famine’s centenary, Eamon de Valera commissioned the ICHS to produce an authoritative history of the Famine to commemorate the events.[footnoteRef:18] However, it was not published until 1956. What’s more, the collection of essays – written by graduate students and supervised by editors like R.D. Edwards – did not live up to the standard promised on commission and although academically acclaimed, was not well received by the public.[footnoteRef:19] For example, criticisms directed at the book were that it had removed the emotion and suffering from the famine, briefly acknowledging in the book that ‘many, many people died’.[footnoteRef:20] On the contrary, in 1962, the publication of Cecil Woodham-Smith’s The Great Hunger, seemed to portray the Famine in the light that many wished to see it, gritty, emotional, and confronting the reality of the widespread suffering.[footnoteRef:21] Criticised, however, for not being academic enough, sensationalized, or simply condescended as a novel.[footnoteRef:22] Nonetheless, the time has shown that Woodham-Smith’s efforts have stood the test of revision, still being widely read and cited while the other is long out of print. Does this display the power of myth over fact? Or is it the result of the ‘value-free’ history being not-so ‘value-free’ after all? Were there intended efforts to downplay British responsibility on one hand, or exaggerate them on the other? Indeed, Famine historiography would accelerate in the years following these publications and the same questions could be applied to many of the disparate interpretations. [17: Stated in note no. 2 of Daly ‘Revisionism’ in Boyce and O’Day, The Making, p. 86. ] [18: Cormac O’Grady, ‘The Saga of The Great Famine’ in Brady, Interpreting, p. 269.] [19: Ibid, p. 284.] [20: Quoted in Kinealy, ‘Beyond’, p. 31.] [21: O’Grady, ‘The Saga’, p. 281.] [22: James S. Donnelly, Jr., ‘The Great Famine: Its Interpreters, Old, and New’, History Ireland, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), p. 28. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27724090) [accessed: 11-1-19].]

As more histories on the Famine were published, it began to be somewhat marginalized in importance. New evidence coupled with stricter historical paradigms, gave revisionist interpretations dominance of the narrative. As such, British responsibility was significantly downplayed as economic and social historians further cemented the notion that the events of the 1840s were unavoidable.[footnoteRef:23] As stated, this may have been necessary for the political climate of the time, however, it would only serve to limit our understanding of events. If the ‘value-free’ methods that were so fundamental to the revisionist approach were in fact compromised by certain values and agendas dictated by context, then it could be inferred that any claimed objectivity is inherently flawed. Taking a strict paradigm and deliberately avoiding certain topics in order to satisfy a particular concept or ideology, are how myths are essentially constructed, no? Therefore, if in fact some revisionist work was intended to debunk nationalist myths, then in some ways it becomes a myth in itself, yielding an interpretive paradox.[footnoteRef:24] For example, much work went into examining the economic state of Ireland prior to the outbreak of the potato blight. Time and again, a picture was painted of a society with so many economic and social fissures, that any disruption to the fragile pillars which supported it would end in catastrophe.[footnoteRef:25] Thus, the onset of a fatal disease on a pillar that was so integral to the structure of that society was ample disruption to result in famine. Contrarily, however, accounts also emerged that showed society in a more positive light. Although most of the Irish population was by no means prospering as poverty was significant, people did have access to essentials like turf, agricultural productivity had been gradually improving, and on the eve of the Famine, Ireland was producing enough food to feed a population of nine million.[footnoteRef:26] As such, the polarisation of interpretation left us for a long time with either, essentially relegating the widespread hardship in the 1840s as an inevitable process, or, that the Famine was the result of British authority deliberately shirking their responsibility. Indeed, it was the former which came to dominate academia for a significant period of time.[footnoteRef:27] Nevertheless, the existence of such polarization is what ultimately hinders any progress in constructing a clearer picture of how the 1840s unfolded. As sectarian tensions subsided, however, and the century came to a close the polarisation gradually seemed to die down. [23: Daly, ‘Revisionism’, p. 76; For a breakdown of several aspects that were revised see Kinealy, ‘Beyond’.] [24: As quoted in George L. Bernstein, ‘Liberals, the Irish Famine and the Role of the State’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 29, No. 116 (Nov. 1995), p. 513. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/30006773) [accessed: 19-1-19]. ‘The term myth as used here does not necessarily imply that the account is untrue. Rather, the myth comprises a combination of fact, fiction, and the unknowable in a narrative of such power that, for the people who accept it, the myth provides a guide to future understanding and action. In this respect, Irish mythology about the English and the Famine is rooted in facts . . .’] [25: For examples of these interpretations see T.W. Freeman, Pre-Famine Ireland. A Study in Historical Geography (Manchester, 1957), or, L.M. Cullen, An Economic History of Ireland Since 1660 (London, 1972), or, K.H. Connell, The population of Ireland, 1750-1845 (Oxford, 1950).] [26: Daly, ‘Revisionism’, p. 78.] [27: Christine Kinealy, The Great Irish Famine: Impact, Ideology, and Rebellion (New York, 2002), p. 2. ]

Significant contributions to the historiography which began to emerge on the eve of the 150th anniversary of the Famine would begin to slowly shatter revised accounts as an era that earned the epithet ‘Feminism’ would commence.[footnoteRef:28] As such, a new wave of interpretations underpinned by a more traditional tone was once again beginning to dominate the narrative.[footnoteRef:29] As economic historians served to bolster revised narratives, John Moykr’s attempt at an economic analysis of pre-Famine Ireland – following on from much-revised material – would end up once again directing responsibility at the British government.[footnoteRef:30] What is slightly different here, however, is that Moykr feels the Union with Britain did not go far enough.[footnoteRef:31] Suggesting that further integration into the Union was stifled because the British viewed Ireland as an ‘alien and even hostile country’.[footnoteRef:32] Moreover, accounts examining powerful economic ideologies – like that of Trevelyan – which heavily influenced British economic policy offered great weight to the notion that the British government did in fact shy away due to their staunch belief that divine Providence was at work.[footnoteRef:33] Suggesting that Mitchel’s lively nationalist propaganda may have reflected reality to a certain extent after all.[footnoteRef:34] However, it could be suggested that these new interpretations were subject to context as much as their earlier revised counterparts. This was a period where the public appetite for traditional interpretations was quite significant.[footnoteRef:35] Plans for national commemorations were beginning and in hindsight, sectarian tensions were subsiding and the cloak of ‘self-censorship’ was being lifted.[footnoteRef:36] As such, the need to fill the void in the historiography concerning emotion, suffering and the question of responsibility may have overshadowed the need to take a more balanced approach. Therefore, the interpretations which came to shape the commemorations of the 1990s – which would also see a public apology from the British government – and to satisfy the existing public consensus around the events, may well have done just as much to skew our understandings of the Famine as the revised narratives did. Nonetheless, they opened the door for more detailed and nuanced interpretations which have shown the true complexity and ambiguity that still haunts the events of the 1840s. [28: Melissa Fagan, Literature and the Irish Famine 1845-1919 (Oxford, 2002), p. 11.] [29: Ibid.] [30: Daly, ‘Revisionism’, p. 83.] [31: Joel Moykr, Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800-1850 (London, 1983), pp. 278-94.] [32: Ibid, p. 291. ] [33: See Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement. The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988), or, Peter Gray, ‘Potatoes and Providence: The British Government’s Response to the Irish Famine’, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (1992).] [34: Donnelly, ‘The Great’, p. 33.] [35: See Cormac Ó Gráda, ‘Making Irish Famine History in 1995’, History Workshop Journal, No. 42 (Autumn, 1996), pp. 87-104 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4289468) {accessed: 20-1-19]; Emily Mark-Fitzgerald, Commemorating the Irish Famine: Memory and the Monument (Liverpool, 2013). ] [36: Kinealy, ‘Beyond’, pp. 28-30.]

More modern-day interpretations show us just how complex the question of culpability actually is. Indeed, the inaction of the British government is important to recognize, however, more nuanced accounts allow us to see that it was not that straightforward. For example, the evidence that was so strong for both sides has been shown to be too contradictory to be viable. How John Mitchel’s zealous nationalist accounts may have been so to conceal the fact that he, O’Connell, and their colleagues offered no viable alternative solutions to the crisis.[footnoteRef:37] How landlords helped to improve land in some cases.[footnoteRef:38] How Charles Trevelyan may have been more sympathetic to the Irish people on occasion than once thought and how his insights were quite valuable for contemporary understandings.[footnoteRef:39] Moreover, as the historiography is examined in more detail it can be seen just how polarising the revisionist versus traditionalist narratives had been. For example, Melissa Fagan would illustrate this in her comprehensive chapter on Famine historiography, the many similarities in the work on both sides of the fence stating that it was a ‘self-created polarity’ between historians.[footnoteRef:40] If this is the case, then the dichotomy must have been the result of context, ideology, and public appetite. Also, economic history, although the main reason behind the success of the revised interpretations, became vital in squashing revisionism while also overcoming radical nationalist rhetoric, such as accusations of murder and genocide.[footnoteRef:41] As context has reduced in significance so too have the polarised interpretations of the Famine. Far more comprehensive accounts of the 1840s have been published and show the deep complexity with which these twentieth-century historians had to battle with.[footnoteRef:42] Combine this with sectarian conflict, national commemorations, and ideology then it is understandable why such a polarised and complicated period of historiography ensued. [37: Daly, ‘Revisionism’, p. 85. ] [38: James S. Donnelly, The Land and the People of Nineteenth-Century Cork (London, 1972), pp. 52-72.] [39: Fagan, Literature, pp. 28-30.] [40: Ibid, p. 5.] [41: Patrick Brantlinger, ‘The Famine’, Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2004), p. 194 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25058660) [accessed: 11-1-19]. ] [42: See John Crowley, Atlas of the Great Irish Famine (Cork, 2012), or, Gearoid O'Tuathaigh, Ireland Before the Famine 1798 – 1848 (Dublin, 2007) for examples of the comprehensive and illuminating works now available on the Famine. ]

In conclusion, when assessing how the period known as the Great Famine has been interpreted by twentieth-century historians it is clear that it was quite a complicated process. When tracing the origins of the narrative that was widely accepted following independence, it highlights how it adopted and maintained its nationalistic undertones as the popular consensus was mainly articulated by political ideologues. This narrative came to dominate consensus right up until the late 1930s when the establishment of more rigorous historical methodologies, which were championed by the ICHS and Irish Historical Studies journal, came to drastically alter how we understood Irish history. As such, the trajectory of Irish historiography would delve into a stifling and polarising period that was severely impacted by the context in the form of sectarian conflict. As such, the Famine was argued to be an epoch of unavoidable crisis where no political intervention on Britain’s part would have done much to help. Consequently, the Famine became somewhat marginalized in importance in the academic efforts to construct an ‘objective’ Irish history. However, national commemorative plans, decreasing sectarian tensions, and a public hungry for a narrative that conveyed the emotion, suffering, and trauma which is so prominent in modern-day Famine understandings, ushered in a period of history writing that some dubbed ‘Feminism’. This was a clear return to traditional narratives where blame was directly and indirectly placed at Westminster’s doors. Ironically, it was an economic history that began revisionism but would then eventually aid in the demise of its credibility by paying more attention to the power of the economic ideology that dominated British politics. Nevertheless, as stated, these interpretations may have succumbed in some areas to the widespread market for sensationalized accounts of the Famine. If so, they are just as vulnerable to context as the accounts they wished to challenge. Therefore, historians of the twentieth century interpreted the Famine in a binary way, focusing too much on the way their work would be interpreted rather than producing a balanced account. Indeed, it was not until the twenty-first century that the real complexity and ambiguity of the 1840s were revealed. Although we may not know exactly why things unfolded as they did, we can now see that it is far too generalizing to attempt to attribute blame or responsibility to any single factor.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1. Butt, Isaac, The Famine in the Land (Dublin 1847).
2. Canon O’Rourke, John, The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847, with Notices of Earlier Famines (Dublin, 1875),
3. Connell, K. H., The population of Ireland, 1750-1845 (Oxford, 1950).
4. Cullen, L. M., An Economic History of Ireland Since 1660 (London, 1972)
5. Donnelly, James S., The Land and the People of Nineteenth-Century Cork (London, 1972)
6. Freeman, T. W., Pre-Famine Ireland. A Study in Historical Geography (Manchester, 1957)
7. Gray, Peter, ‘Potatoes and Providence: The British Government’s Response to the Irish Famine, Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge (1992)
8. Hilton, Byod The Age of Atonement. The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785-1865 (Oxford, 1988)
9. Lyons, F. S. L., ‘The Meaning of Independence’ in Farrell, Brian, (ed), The Irish Parliamentary Tradition (Dublin, 1973).
10. Mitchel, John, Jail journal, or, Five years in British prisons: commenced on board the Shearwater steamer…(New York, 1854).
11. Moykr, Joel, Why Ireland Starved: A Quantitative and Analytical History of the Irish Economy, 1800-1850 (London, 1983).
12. Welch, Robert, (ed.), The Oxford Companion to Irish Literature (Oxford, 1996).
13. Woodham-Smith, Cecil, The Great Hunger (London, 1962).

Secondary Sources

1. Bernstein, George L., ‘Liberals, the Irish Famine and the Role of the State’, Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 29, No. 116 (Nov. 1995), pp. 513 – 536. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/30006773) [accessed: 19-1-19].
2. Boyce, D. George, and O’Day, Alan, ‘Introduction: ‘Revisionism’ and the ‘revisionist controversy’, in Idem (eds), The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy (London, 1996), pp. 1 – 14.
3. Bradshaw, Brendan, ‘Nationalism and Historical Scholarship in Modern Ireland’, in Ciaran Brady (ed), Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism (Dublin, 1994) pp. 191 – 216.
4. Brady, Ciaran, ‘‘Constructive and Instrumental’: The Dilemma of Ireland’s First ‘New Historians’’, in Idem (ed), Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism (Dublin, 1994), pp. 3 – 34.
5. Brantlinger, Patrick, ‘The Famine’, Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2004), pp. 193-207 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/25058660) [accessed: 11-1-19].
6. Crowley, John, Atlas of the Great Irish Famine (Cork, 2012).
7. Daly, Mary, ‘Revisionism and Irish History: The Great Famine’, in D. George Boyce and Alan O’Day (eds), The Making of Modern Irish History: Revisionism and the Revisionist Controversy (London, 1996), pp. 71 – 89.
8. Donnelly, James S., ‘The Great Famine: Its Interpreters, Old, and New’, History Ireland, Vol. 1, No. 3 (Autumn, 1993), p. 28. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27724090) [accessed: 11-1-19].
9. Fagan, Melissa, Literature and the Irish Famine 1845-1919 (Oxford, 2002).
10. Hutchinson, John, The Dynamics of Cultural Nationalism: The Gaelic Revival and the Creation of the Irish Nation State (London, 1987).
11. Kinealy, Christine, ‘Beyond Revisionism: Reassessing the Great Irish Famine’, History Ireland, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 29-30 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27724290) [accessed: 11-1-19].
12. The Great Irish Famine: Impact, Ideology, and Rebellion (New York, 2002).
13. O'Callaghan, John, Teaching Irish Independence: History in Irish Schools, 1922-72 (Newcastle upon Tyne, 2009).
14. O’Grady, Cormac, ‘The Saga of The Great Famine’ in Ciaran Brady, Interpreting Irish History: The Debate on Historical Revisionism (Dublin, 1994), pp. 269 – 287.
15. O’Tuama, Sean, (ed.), The Gaelic League Idea (Dublin, 1972).
16. O'Tuathaigh, Gearoid, Ireland Before the Famine 1798 – 1848 (Dublin, 2007).