What do you think?
Rate this book
The Oxford History of Ireland
Few countries can boast as compelling a history as Ireland. This volume captures all the varied legacies of the Emerald Isle, from the earliest prehistoric communities and the first Christian settlements, through centuries of turbulent change and creativity, right up to the present day. Written by a team of scholars--all of whom are native to Ireland--this book offers the most authoritative account of Irish history yet published for the general reader. Emphasizing the paradoxes and ambiguities of Irish history, this book presents a more realistic picture than other histories. It explores, for example, the reasons behind the intense regional variations in agriculture, prosperity, and political affiliation in so small a land, and shows why Victorian norms prevail in certain areas of twentieth-century life. It also examines more familiar themes--such as the recurrent religious strife and the shaping of new political entities--and offers a special section on the interaction between Irish history and its rich literary tradition. Wide-ranging and highly readable, this vivid view of Ireland will entertain and inform anyone interested in this fascinating and colorful island nation.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1989
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 17, 2024
This book is a revisionist history of Ireland, published in 1989 as a set of essays by six academic professors. I found it condescending throughout. I read it to the end, hoping to find at least one of the contributors who didn't simplistically describe history as "clashes of classes." But, alas, from the year 77 to the date this "history" ended in about 1987, the people of Ireland are portrayed as either tribal class, lordship class, vassal class, magnate class, rural class, noble class, peasant class, ascendancy class, tenant class, landholding class, rebels, militants, degenerates, priests, bards, high society, low society, and of course the ultimate Marxian assignments: bourgeoisie and proletariat. Herr Marx himself is cited for his "observations" about the hierarchy of status among populations, which does at least suggest a source for these professors' fixation upon categorizing everyone according to some social "status."
Besides general group classifications, each historical individual cited—from mythology through royal, political, literary, religious, military, or rebellious fields—is placed into one "class" or another, but if any is said to have moved from a birth class to another class during a lifetime, he or she is besmirched for some sort of betrayal. Every phase of the 2000-year-old history of Ireland is demeaned as it is summarized by these authors, and the conclusion on the final page seems to be that the Irish are hopelessly inept and unlikely to ever be able to govern themselves should they ultimately succeed in their recurring attempts to extricate themselves from rule by foreign invaders over the centuries.
How ironic that since 1989, the Irish have proved these writers to be wildly mistaken. I will have to find another book to teach me the history of the past 27 years, so that I will understand how a tourist to Ireland today finds such a clean, orderly, and exquisitely beautiful land filled with kind, generous, industrious, prosperous, gracious, and welcoming native citizens. How, indeed, did such a degenerate culture produce such vast numbers of musicians, writers, craftsmen, corporate executives, politicians, professional golfers, small business operators, large business managers, agricultural producers, and every other skilled occupation one might name, both at home and throughout the world?
Whatever accuracy is related about Irish history in this book is overridden by a tone of unnecessary snobbery that spoils the telling.
Besides general group classifications, each historical individual cited—from mythology through royal, political, literary, religious, military, or rebellious fields—is placed into one "class" or another, but if any is said to have moved from a birth class to another class during a lifetime, he or she is besmirched for some sort of betrayal. Every phase of the 2000-year-old history of Ireland is demeaned as it is summarized by these authors, and the conclusion on the final page seems to be that the Irish are hopelessly inept and unlikely to ever be able to govern themselves should they ultimately succeed in their recurring attempts to extricate themselves from rule by foreign invaders over the centuries.
How ironic that since 1989, the Irish have proved these writers to be wildly mistaken. I will have to find another book to teach me the history of the past 27 years, so that I will understand how a tourist to Ireland today finds such a clean, orderly, and exquisitely beautiful land filled with kind, generous, industrious, prosperous, gracious, and welcoming native citizens. How, indeed, did such a degenerate culture produce such vast numbers of musicians, writers, craftsmen, corporate executives, politicians, professional golfers, small business operators, large business managers, agricultural producers, and every other skilled occupation one might name, both at home and throughout the world?
Whatever accuracy is related about Irish history in this book is overridden by a tone of unnecessary snobbery that spoils the telling.
January 20, 2019
This book is less an academic study of Irish history and more a synopsis of the authors prejudices which he hides behind an overly verbose account of Irish history. History is supposed to be impartial and historians are, or were when I studied history supposed to abide by (or at least attempt to abide by) such an ideal.
However Mr. Foster fails in this regard quite spectacularly.
How he can describe the death of Terence McSweeny on hunger strike as a "droll apotheosis" is beyond me. The snobbish Anglo-Irish tone continues throughout and permeates the entire book turning what could have been an excellent history book into a strange medley of Anglo-Irish contempt for uncivilised peasants and an over use of the English language. Mr Foster never uses a short word where he can squeeze a long one in. Perhaps he is trying to confuse the natives. In this at least he succeeds.
In short a well written exercise in a thoroughly bias Anglo-centric viewpoint on Irish history.
As a work of fiction though, it;s a great read.
(The one star is for the pictures)
However Mr. Foster fails in this regard quite spectacularly.
How he can describe the death of Terence McSweeny on hunger strike as a "droll apotheosis" is beyond me. The snobbish Anglo-Irish tone continues throughout and permeates the entire book turning what could have been an excellent history book into a strange medley of Anglo-Irish contempt for uncivilised peasants and an over use of the English language. Mr Foster never uses a short word where he can squeeze a long one in. Perhaps he is trying to confuse the natives. In this at least he succeeds.
In short a well written exercise in a thoroughly bias Anglo-centric viewpoint on Irish history.
As a work of fiction though, it;s a great read.
(The one star is for the pictures)
July 31, 2018
It's great if you want an overview. A little dry for what it is.
I gave it three stars because if you want a quick overview it will do the trick. Otherwise, I think you might want a longer form of the stories of Ireland. This really does cover from Vikings to the British, to Henry VIII and to the present day. I can't complain. I get that much out of it.
But if you actually go to Ireland, well, that is a place that knows how to make a short story long. As such, it was kind of striking how this made a long story short. Depends what you want.
I gave it three stars because if you want a quick overview it will do the trick. Otherwise, I think you might want a longer form of the stories of Ireland. This really does cover from Vikings to the British, to Henry VIII and to the present day. I can't complain. I get that much out of it.
But if you actually go to Ireland, well, that is a place that knows how to make a short story long. As such, it was kind of striking how this made a long story short. Depends what you want.
November 20, 2023
collection of essays written by a number of Irish historians / cultural critics. nothing too controversial about the sections on Viking or Norman settlement, at least to my eyes. Nicholas Canny's section on the Plantations gets a bit sneery on some technicality or other.
Roy Foster is responsible for a chapter on the Protestant Ascendency and makes an idiot of himself, opening with a couple of paragraphs about how Irish history summons up a number of well-trod themes about dispossession, absentee landlords and famine. The intended effect here is to summon up an impression of someone with their eyes half closed canted over a glass of sherry lisping over what the great unwashed might think of a particular subject, whereas I know, whereas I think. It's also a rhetorical ploy to wheedlingly insinuate that famine and absentee landlords do not characterise nineteenth-century Irish history.
Incidentally Foster grants about a paragraph to the Famine and describes the English response as 'at the very least inadequate', but makes sure to emphasise how well-intentioned and constructive the colonial apparatus was.
Through the 1798, O'Connell sections almost every paragraph concludes with: 'thus did a highly partial account of the era enter into the armoury of Irish nationalist mythology' or 'the pantheon of Irish martyrology could only be further inflated by such piety'. What's being attempted here is of course some sort of deflationary gesture; Irish nationalists understood neither the society they lived in nor their own history but as a piece of analysis it's remarkably banal. You could easily re-phrase it as 'people remembered this', or 'subsequent generations interpreted this event in different ways'.
Foster also notes a number of times how class in Ireland did not behave the same way as it did in other European societies. He does not, as you might expect, ask why. What he does do is put forward a cod representation of what an Irish nationalist might think about how Irish society worked and then put together a bit of argumentative fingerwork along the lines of: 'you guys might think this is real straightforward, but it's actually: complicated'. He might then provide an account of a mutually beneficial relationship between an English landlord or an Irish tenant, or an instance in which a tenant made a decent living, or an English landlord didn't'.
(He also has a Donnish stylistic tic where he throws around French phrases: 'douceur', 'viz. a viz.', 'revanché')
FitzPatrick's essay on the modern Irish revolutionary period would share a lot of Foster's biases, and doesn't mention, e.g. where the UVF got their guns from, which left me amazed that heads like this had the run of the discipline for so long. Forty years ago you could be looking to pick up a book on Irish history and the only thing you'd learn about the 1916 Rising is that the IRA were the nineteenth century version of jihadis, Padraig Pearse's understanding of the Battle of Clontarf was flawed James Connolly had an inflated view of himself. How did this pass muster?
Roy Foster is responsible for a chapter on the Protestant Ascendency and makes an idiot of himself, opening with a couple of paragraphs about how Irish history summons up a number of well-trod themes about dispossession, absentee landlords and famine. The intended effect here is to summon up an impression of someone with their eyes half closed canted over a glass of sherry lisping over what the great unwashed might think of a particular subject, whereas I know, whereas I think. It's also a rhetorical ploy to wheedlingly insinuate that famine and absentee landlords do not characterise nineteenth-century Irish history.
Incidentally Foster grants about a paragraph to the Famine and describes the English response as 'at the very least inadequate', but makes sure to emphasise how well-intentioned and constructive the colonial apparatus was.
Through the 1798, O'Connell sections almost every paragraph concludes with: 'thus did a highly partial account of the era enter into the armoury of Irish nationalist mythology' or 'the pantheon of Irish martyrology could only be further inflated by such piety'. What's being attempted here is of course some sort of deflationary gesture; Irish nationalists understood neither the society they lived in nor their own history but as a piece of analysis it's remarkably banal. You could easily re-phrase it as 'people remembered this', or 'subsequent generations interpreted this event in different ways'.
Foster also notes a number of times how class in Ireland did not behave the same way as it did in other European societies. He does not, as you might expect, ask why. What he does do is put forward a cod representation of what an Irish nationalist might think about how Irish society worked and then put together a bit of argumentative fingerwork along the lines of: 'you guys might think this is real straightforward, but it's actually: complicated'. He might then provide an account of a mutually beneficial relationship between an English landlord or an Irish tenant, or an instance in which a tenant made a decent living, or an English landlord didn't'.
(He also has a Donnish stylistic tic where he throws around French phrases: 'douceur', 'viz. a viz.', 'revanché')
FitzPatrick's essay on the modern Irish revolutionary period would share a lot of Foster's biases, and doesn't mention, e.g. where the UVF got their guns from, which left me amazed that heads like this had the run of the discipline for so long. Forty years ago you could be looking to pick up a book on Irish history and the only thing you'd learn about the 1916 Rising is that the IRA were the nineteenth century version of jihadis, Padraig Pearse's understanding of the Battle of Clontarf was flawed James Connolly had an inflated view of himself. How did this pass muster?
July 14, 2022
When I read this book, I find the ancient geographical insights of Ireland quite grand. Then, as history progresses, I find the very Anglo-centric and protestant favoring side to win out somehow. Ostensibly, a history of the rise of the Irish state focuses very little about nationalism and state-making. Instead, it seemingly washes away the atrocities of Cromwell to spend less than 2 pages dictating how beneficial he made Ireland for English trade. Foster then blathers on about how profitable the Georgian era was for the English and then how subsequent Home Rule campaigns were futile under Parnell.
While hindsight is 20/20, and he couldn't have predicted the Good Friday agreement, I feel like the negligence to report on who the true villains of Bloody Sunday is a failure on Foster's part. His ignorance of class politics betrays his very absent critique of how the social status of the Catholics was used not just to repress them, but to devalue the practice of their immaterial catholicism and encourage a non-spiritual protestant-political paradigm.
I have one final thing to say, Oh, come out ye black and tans, Come out and fight me like a man. Show your wife how you won medals down in Flanders. Tell her how the IRA made you run like hell away from the green and lovely lanes of Killashandra.
Come let us hear you tell how you slandered great Parnell when you fought them well and truly persecuted. Where are the smears and jeers that you loudly let us hear when our leaders of sixteen were executed?
1 star because pictures
While hindsight is 20/20, and he couldn't have predicted the Good Friday agreement, I feel like the negligence to report on who the true villains of Bloody Sunday is a failure on Foster's part. His ignorance of class politics betrays his very absent critique of how the social status of the Catholics was used not just to repress them, but to devalue the practice of their immaterial catholicism and encourage a non-spiritual protestant-political paradigm.
I have one final thing to say, Oh, come out ye black and tans, Come out and fight me like a man. Show your wife how you won medals down in Flanders. Tell her how the IRA made you run like hell away from the green and lovely lanes of Killashandra.
Come let us hear you tell how you slandered great Parnell when you fought them well and truly persecuted. Where are the smears and jeers that you loudly let us hear when our leaders of sixteen were executed?
1 star because pictures
July 6, 2018
The second star is for the pictures.
March 6, 2014
A long, sweeping ride through the history of Ireland starting in the prehistoric era and passing the barbarian tribes and kingships of the Middle Ages, the Norman Invasion, the Ascendancy, and finally ending up in modern-day Ireland, the Oxford History of Ireland covers a lot of ground. Unfortunately, much of the writing is snoozy and the big, important arcs of history are camouflaged in a landscape rife with weeds, an overwhelming surplus of facts of minor importance to the reader not writing a research paper. The beautiful contours of the Emerald Isle are hard to see from the dense thicket of vegetation you're confronted with. If you're looking for Irish history in broad strokes, as I was, this is probably not the best place to start. I felt like I was looking at a Monet under a magnifying glass when all I wanted was to back up a few feet and take in the whole thing.
This sounds like a mostly negative review, so why did I give this work 5 stars? Because the last chapter is dazzling. As a collaboration of six scholars, the book doesn't soar until Declan Kiberd takes the helm in the final chapter, "Irish Literature and Irish History." Unlike the dry, academic writing of the preceding chapters--not befitting the land of Yeats and Joyce--Kiberd's essay stands apart as he contextualizes the works of the great Irish writers, exploring the unique mixture of nationalism, ancient lore, pride, and colonial oppression that spawned the Irish Renaissance. And he ends with a sad assessment of the current state of art in Ireland and the failure of modern writers to do justice to the mythical Cathleen ni Houlihan. He laments a once fierce literary tradition that is now shy of politics and has failed to rise to the occasion during the "hunger strikes of the 1980s, or the torture of innocent suspects in Irish and British gaols, or divorce and abortion referenda of the mid-80s." Kiberd partially blames the state's coziness with artists (tax-exemptions, guaranteed minimum income) for writing that eschews examining social conditions in favor of addressing social problems in the context of the pathology of man, arguing that artists and intellectuals "don't wish to bite the political hand that feeds--or might feed--them." He exalts the meaningful role that writers like O'Casey and Synge, whose plays caused riots, had in Irish culture and soberly observes, "Not long ago, artists and intellectuals were oppressed by the Irish people; but now, there is a distinct possibility that the Irish people are oppressed--in the sense of misrepresented or ignored--by the intellectuals."
I want to go on quoting the whole last few pages, but instead I'll just highly recommend you go out and buy the book, if only for the last chapter.
This sounds like a mostly negative review, so why did I give this work 5 stars? Because the last chapter is dazzling. As a collaboration of six scholars, the book doesn't soar until Declan Kiberd takes the helm in the final chapter, "Irish Literature and Irish History." Unlike the dry, academic writing of the preceding chapters--not befitting the land of Yeats and Joyce--Kiberd's essay stands apart as he contextualizes the works of the great Irish writers, exploring the unique mixture of nationalism, ancient lore, pride, and colonial oppression that spawned the Irish Renaissance. And he ends with a sad assessment of the current state of art in Ireland and the failure of modern writers to do justice to the mythical Cathleen ni Houlihan. He laments a once fierce literary tradition that is now shy of politics and has failed to rise to the occasion during the "hunger strikes of the 1980s, or the torture of innocent suspects in Irish and British gaols, or divorce and abortion referenda of the mid-80s." Kiberd partially blames the state's coziness with artists (tax-exemptions, guaranteed minimum income) for writing that eschews examining social conditions in favor of addressing social problems in the context of the pathology of man, arguing that artists and intellectuals "don't wish to bite the political hand that feeds--or might feed--them." He exalts the meaningful role that writers like O'Casey and Synge, whose plays caused riots, had in Irish culture and soberly observes, "Not long ago, artists and intellectuals were oppressed by the Irish people; but now, there is a distinct possibility that the Irish people are oppressed--in the sense of misrepresented or ignored--by the intellectuals."
I want to go on quoting the whole last few pages, but instead I'll just highly recommend you go out and buy the book, if only for the last chapter.
March 8, 2015
This book accomplishes what had been assumed to be impossible: making the colorful history of the Irish people irrelevant and boring. Perhaps it represents the relatively new perspective of history: facts unhindered by persons or events. It's like a poor travelogue: "Interstate 9 has been constructed based upon the typical Roman technique but modified by newer materials such as macadam. Travel has become more comfortable and hence enjoyable." What about the Rockies? The vast grasslands of Montana? Prairie dogs? Bison? Lewis & Clark? Seattle? The Columbia River?
You get the point.
It seems to me that the new historian writes for himself. His intent is not to educate but to impress the reader with his depth of knowledge, synthesizing data as proofs for an innovative view.
Avoid this book.
You get the point.
It seems to me that the new historian writes for himself. His intent is not to educate but to impress the reader with his depth of knowledge, synthesizing data as proofs for an innovative view.
Avoid this book.
March 31, 2014
A thorough and enlightening explanation of the major episodes in Irish history. I think this book would probably be best if combined with other reading material, say, in a college course. Not having a knowledgable source available to ask my questions of, I had to resort to googling things I was unfamiliar with. A glossary would have been useful. Overall, comprehensive and worth reading if you want to invest the time and energy into learning about Irish history.
October 11, 2010
somewhere in the first 50 pages Foster refers to mercenaries as 'ubiquitous'...but actually we don't see many of them. Cromwell is also dismissed rather quickly.
At the same time, points of this history are very detailed--the early period especially so-- but it still manages to get at some of the greater arcs of Irish history
At the same time, points of this history are very detailed--the early period especially so-- but it still manages to get at some of the greater arcs of Irish history
July 4, 2021
A very cursory outline of Irish history with little or no insights into the state of Irish politics and society today. There are a few chapters on Irish art, literature and music which I found somewhat interesting however.
There are certainly many more thorough histories of Ireland for the serious researcher but for a casual reader this may be adequate.
There are certainly many more thorough histories of Ireland for the serious researcher but for a casual reader this may be adequate.
December 27, 2016
A dry, scholarly text that corrects many of the myths of Irish history, while destroying any romance as well. The final chapter by D. Kiberd is superfluous. The book requires a knowledge of the histories of both Ireland and England, as many of the major acts are only given a line or a paragraph.
June 7, 2007
Very illluminating. The chapter written by editor Mr Foster is far and away the most evocative and compelling and clear
April 12, 2008
senior thesis
March 14, 2012
An excellent book, the standout contribution being Declan Kiberd's chapter on Irish literature.
February 2, 2012
Too many facts and figures (and opinion) without much depth.
Read
May 3, 2011dry but informative
March 2, 2013
Great reference book, easy to dip into for information. Some day I'll read the entire volume...
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews