1899-05-12 — Dublin Daily Express — Irish Literary Theatre
georgemooreinteractive.org · https://georgemooreinteractive.org/1899-05-12-dublin-daily-express-irish-literary-theatre/
Irish Literary Theatre
Daily Express (Dublin), 12 May 1899, pages 5-6, 8,224 words
George Moore’s contribution to this newspaper article is placed with contributions of others to preserve the original context.
I transcribed the article from muddy page images supplied by the British Newspaper Archive. I inserted a heading for each speaker at the event, reflected here in a table of contents. The speakers and other participants were not carefully identified; in some cases I guessed.
Dinner at the Shelbourne Hotel
Interesting Speeches
Last night the gentlemen who have been instrumental in promoting the new Irish Literary Theatre were entertained to dinner at the Shelbourne Hotel by the Editor of the “Daily Express,” who occupied the chair.
At the right of the Chairman were — Mr. W.B. Yeats, Professor Tyrrell, S.F.T.C.D.; Mr. George Moore, Rev. Dr. Bernard, F.T.C.D.; Dr. Douglas Hyde, LL.D.; Mr. Justice Ross, Mr. R.A. Anderson, Secretary Irish Agricultural Organisation Society; Mr. J.G. Barton, Commissioner of Valuation; Mr. Jonathan Pim, D.L.; Mr. Magee (“John Eglinton”); Dr. J.E. Kenny, Mr. Standish O’Grady, Mr. M.A. Manning, Mr. Beresford, Mr. Wright.
At the left of the Chairman were Mr. Edward Martyn, DL.; Dr. Sigerson, F.R.U.I.; Mr. Max Beerbohm (“Saturday Review”); Mr. J.F. Taylor, Q.C.; Mr. George Coffey, M.R.I.A.; Mr. C. Litton Falkiner, Mr. J. M. Campbell, Q.C., M.P.; Dr. Myles, Vice President College of Surgeons; Mr. Jonathan Hogg; Mr. C.H. Oldham, Mr. Stewart; Mr. McGreneham[?]; Mr. John O’Leary; Mr. T.W. Rolleston; Mr. W. Larmine [?]; Mr. T. Kingston; Mr. J.E. Heap, Mr. Longworth.
Thomas Patrick Gill
The Chairman proposed the toast of the Queen, which was duly honoured.
LETTERS OF APOLOGY.
The Chairman said he desired, before proceeding with the toast list of the evening, to be permitted to read one of two letters of apology he has received. The first was from Mr. Lecky (applause), who might be described without hesitation as the foremost Irish literary man (applause). The letter was as follows: —
May 19, 1899
Dear Mr. Gill. — I am sorry that I cannot have the pleasure of joining your dinner to-morrow, but an important Old Age Pension Committee which I must attend makes it absolutely impossible.
I may take this opportunity to say with what deep pleasure I have learned the success of Mr. Yeats’ very remarkable play and with what sincere sympathy I have been following the work of the school of brilliant young Irish writers to which he belongs. It is not often that we have such a genuine or such a distinctive literary movement in Ireland, and the interest it is exciting seems to me one of the best signs in contemporary Irish life.
These writers have already done good work, and I trust they may have a long and noble future before them. — I am, yours faithfully,
W.E.H. LECKY.
The other letter was from a gentleman whose absence, he was sure, all present sincerely regretted, because he might tell them that the idea of that gathering, which they were so pleasantly celebrating, originated chiefly with him, as Mr. Moore and Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn would testify. He alluded to his friend, Mr. Horace Plunkett (applause), who was, if he (the chairman) might be allowed to say so, one of the noblest and truest sons which Ireland has ever begotten (applause). Mr. Horace Plunkett wrote: —
Princes Hotel, Brighton, 10th May, 1899.
Dear Mr. Editor — Of all the disappointments which my accident has brought me, having to refuse your invitation to the dinner you are giving to-morrow night is the most grievous to be borne. I learned many weeks ago that the promoters of the Literary Theatre were desirous of meeting during the week of the performances some of those Irishmen who take a deep interest and a pride in the national revival which has manifestly begun. It was a happy thought of yours giving effect to this desire in a manner so agreeable and, for an editor, so human.
I long to be with you all, chiefly because, as one who has chosen the humbler service of promoting the development of material resources, I am always, I am always glad to emphasise the paramount importance from the purely economic standpoint of simultaneously developing our national life in the higher regions of literature and art. We practical folk keep a poet in the office of our Agricultural Organisation Society, from whom our most fruitful inspirations are derived.
It is on the friendly relations and mutual help subsisting between the two classes of workers for Ireland’s regeneration that I rest my hopes for the future. I bitterly regret my absence from a gathering where, I am sure, the true, the encouraging note will be struck. — Truly yours,
HORACE PLUNKETT.
The Lord Chief Justice of Ireland (Sir Peter O’Brien) wrote stating that it was with sincere regret he found himself unable to be present, because he took a very great interest in the Irish Literary Theatre (applause).
THE IRISH LITERARY THEATRE
The Chairman proposed the toast of “The Irish Literary Theatre,” coupling with it the names of the two authors whose plays had been produced during the week, Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn (applause). They had an exciting week in Ireland (hear, hear), a week which would be memorable in the literary history of the country (applause). For the first time Ireland, which, goodness knew, had known plenty of excitement from other causes, had been profoundly stirred upon an intellectual question. He regarded the controversy which Mr. Yeats’s play had aroused as one of the best signs of the times (applause). It showed that they had reached at last the end of the intellectual stagnation of Ireland (hear, hear), and that, so to speak, the grey matter of Ireland’s brain was at last becoming active (hear, hear). Let them have by all means such contrariety of opinion as had arisen over “Countess Cathleen,” because the clash of minds of matters of criticism — as long as they conducted the controversy like civilised men — such conflict was the very breath of intellectual life (applause). In the Irish Literary Theatre movement they had the support of men of different views upon many matters, including, he believed, the theology of “Countess Cathleen” (laughter and applause). They were not required to surrender their freedom of judgment in respect to that production or any production which they hoped would be placed upon the stage from year to year (applause). For his own part, he was free to say that while he was a great admirer of Mr. Yeats’s poetry and the wonderful beauty of his “Countess Cathleen,” he (the speaker) did not regard the play as by any means the best of Mr. Yeats’s works, as there were, no doubt, some [who] did, and he would not accept it as a presentation of the life and character of Ireland, if it were offered to them as such (applause). The thoughts of those cowering hinds did not represent the attitude of the Irish peasantry towards the things of their religion (applause). Might he say that he claimed that they should treat with respect the feelings of those who, taking Mr. Yeats’s play very literally as a piece of realism, had expressed the strongest dissent upon these points (hear, hear). Read in that light there must be many things in the play which must necessarily jar upon their most sacred feelings (hear, hear). He had heard Protestants as well as Catholics complain, and he must say that on that interesting and memorable first night those who made the protests then clearly made them only in that sense (hear, hear). There was nothing more charming than to see the appreciation of the protesters themselves of the beauty of the work, to see them leading the applause, and the whole audience joining in, as some of the lofty and spiritual thoughts of the play struck the chords attuned to them in their hearts (applause). Mr. Years, like Browning and Tennyson, had been misinterpreted as to the meaning of his work (hear, hear). Mr. Yeats would be speaking presently, and would tell them all about it, and would blow the clouds away (applause). He (the speaker), for one, always regarded Mr. Yeats broadly, as one who held the sword of spirit in his hand, and waged war upon the gross host of materialism, and as an Irishman of genius who had devoted a noble enthusiasm to honouring his country by the production of beautiful work (applause). What should he say of Mr. Martyn? (Applause). There was no controversy with regard to him (laughter and applause). Their minds were not occupied by controversy, but with that which must be gratifying to Mr. Martyn and to all of them — the knowledge that he had produced a great and original play, and that Ireland had discovered in him a dramatist fitted to take rank among the first in Europe (loud applause). If the Irish Literary movement had done no more than to furnish the means of providing a stage and actors of the highest talent like Mr. Kingston (applause) and Miss Whitty (renewed applause), to produce a play such as Mr. Martyn’s, which was both noble and enthralling, it has fully justified its existence (applause). There was now the opportunity for the regular theatrical managers, and if he might offer a suggestion to their friends Mr. Mouillot and Mr. Gunn, it would be that they might do worse than take the “Heather Field,” with its company just as it stood, and put it for a week on the stage at the Gaiety or the Royal (loud applause). That gathering of Irishmen, which, he thought he might say, was representative of the intellect of Ireland, and included men of utmost difference of opinion on every question which now divided Irishmen, was to his mind a symbol of what they were moving towards in this country (applause). They reached at one time quite recently a stage in their development which had cast over the minds of Irishmen a terrible feeling of depression. A feeling that the country was breaking up and going to the dogs (hear, hear). He thought they had now reached a stage at which they had begun to recognize the profundity of the saying —
The mills of God grind slowly,
But grind exceeding small.
(Applause). They saw, out of the disruption that took place in the country during the long run of that destructive legislation — which, no doubt, was a necessary surgical operation, but which caused suffering of the deepest and the keenest kind to the different classes of the country — that all the disruption and suffering was the germination of new life, the beginning of a new State (applause). They all felt instinctively now that the time for the reconstruction of Ireland had begun (applause). They stood among the debris of the old society, and felt that out of the ruins they were called upon to build a new Ireland (applause). In the words of Mr. Horace Plunkett, the note of their gathering was a note of encouragement (hear, hear). No matter what their different opinions on various questions might be, they all felt within them a throb of enthusiasm for their new life, their common country, and a determination that, irrespective of the differences of views, they would give their country an intellectual and political future worthy of all the suffering that every class and every creed of the country had gone through in the past (loud applause).
William Butler Yeats
Mr. Yeats, who was cordially received, responded. He said the last occasion on which he had the pleasure of speaking at a similar gathering was one brought together for a very different object. It was a dinner presided over by Mr. Horace Plunkett, and was in connection with the Agricultural Organization Society, and he remembered pointing out or suggesting at the time that the coming together of the different classes, drawn by a common impulse of service to the country, would be one of the necessary steps towards that intellectual movement for which they were all waiting and working. To-night the had been brought together on the invitation of the editor of the newspaper which was particularly the organ of the classes who had busied themselves with that movement of Mr. Plunkett, to celebrate a part of that intellectual endeavour which he had spoken of a year ago at Mr. Plunkett’s dinner. Both movements — Mr. Plunkett’s and their less important one — were alike symptoms of the intellectual ferment which was going on in this country. At last apathy and cynicism, deep besetting sins of their country, were beginning to evaporate (applause), and, like the chairman, he welcomed exceedingly the controversy which had arisen about his play. He thought his best friends had been those who had most bitterly attacked his play (no). That was, perhaps, putting it a little too strong (laughter), but, at all events, one could rejoice to see the country at last fierce upon a purely intellectual issue. There were the issues which they should always be fierce upon, but they were the only issues in this country which they were accustomed to treat with entire apathy (applause). His only regret in connection with the whole matter was that Cardinal Logue, who was such a good friend to national movements like that of the Gaelic League — Dr. Douglas Hyde had, he thought, found him one of the useful friends of that movement — should have been misled about the nature of the play. However, he (Mr. Yeats) hoped that if ever Cardinal Logue ever found leisure to read the play, he would discover how deeply he had been misled. He had now singled any particular argument that moved him to write that letter. Hr. (Mr. Yeats) must therefore simply summarise very shortly what had been said against his play and answer it. He did not answer it in the hope of convincing the most ardent of his opponents. He spoke “not to convert those who did not believe, but to protect those who did” (laughter). The chief arguments against the play were three: first that the story was German, secondly that he had blasphemed in it, and thirdly that he had slandered the country. A very ingenious antagonist was anxious to prove that the play was not Celtic, and therefore looked to a country which by common consent was not Celtic, and therefore pitched upon Germany. Well, as a matter of fact, a well-known writer told them that it was an Irish story, and in Mr. Larmine's book, “West Irish Folk,” it was, he believed, stated that the story was one of those imaginative fables which go through all countries and belong to no country. The argument that he was a blasphemer was a very simple one. The utterances of the demons and lost souls had been described as the beliefs of himself (laughter). The charge that he has slandered the country was worked out with great ingenuity. It was said Mr. Yeats had made the peasants thieves and the women false to their husbands, and it was asked is that Celtic? Well, he was ready to admit that nobody ever robbed in Ireland, and that no woman was ever false to husband. That might be true, but it was perfectly irrelevant, for, after all, it was nothing against the truth of a thing to say that it never happened (laughter and applause). HIs play, of course, was purely symbolic, and as such it must be regarded. Literature was the expression of universal truths by the medium of particular symbols; and those who were working at the National Literary movement and at all such movements were simply trying to give to universal truths the expression which would move most the people about them. In all countries where suffering had made patriotism a passion they had found literature turning to that patriotism as to its most powerful re-ecboe (applause). On that they must rely if they were to stir the people of the country profoundly. This was the great sword that had been put into their hands, and what they had to do was to spiritualise the patriotism and the drama of this country. What time had in store for them the future alone would tell; but it looked as if the writers of this country were seeking for spiritual things and lifting their voice against that externality, that worship of power, and the worship of merely external magnificence which seemed to be spreading over the English-speaking races (applause).
Edward Martyn
Mr. Martyn also responded. He expressed his pleasure at the result of the efforts of the Literary Theatre movement, and said that the help they had all received had more than repaid any efforts they had made on its behalf.
Max Beerbohm
Mr. Max Beerbohm proposed the health of the Irish Universities. In the course of his speech he said it was only yesterday he had the pleasure and excitement of landing in Ireland (laughter), and the pleasure and excitement of meeting Mr. Gill for the first time (laughter), who with characteristic Irish hospitality asked him to that dinner, and he did not hesitate for a moment to accept the invitation (applause). Then Mr. Gill told him there were going to be speeches, and asked him to make one (hear, hear). He, however, said, “No, no, don’t ask me” (loud laughter), and Mr. Gill smiled a charming mellifluous Irish smile, and he thought there was an end of it (laughter). He had absolutely no gift for speaking. The last time he spoke was at an Oxford College debate, and he broke down ignominiously, and it was quite on the tapis that he should do it again (laughter). He had to propose the toast of the two Universities of Ireland, Trinity College and the Royal University. He had never yet seen the two Universities, but had heard a great deal about them and had known many men from those Universities, and therefore, felt he could speak of them with some feeling. He did not know what attitude the Universities took towards the Irish Literary Theatre movement, the Celtic renaissance of the drama; but Universities were continuous and eternal, while the drama merely lived by fits and starts (laughter and applause) as the people did who had to do the difficult and fatiguing duties of dramatic critics (applause). He believed, however, that the Colleges must be very proud of Mr. Yeats as an Irish poet (applause), and of Mr. Martyn as a playwright. He had pleasure in proposing the toast.
The toast having been enthusiastically drunk.
George Ferdinand Shaw
Dr. Shaw replied. He said the question was asked, what was the attitude of the Irish Universities towards this movement. He would try to answer the question without exaggeration, enthusiasm, or lying — which was often only another word for enthusiasm (laughter). The duty of the University was instruction, and they were very much interested in any revival of letters. Nobody would be worthy of the name University that was not, but they were not going to take promise for performance. They wanted to see it, and hoped to see it, and he thought they had a very good earnest that they had a satisfactory beginning (hear, hear). As to talking about the great heart of Ireland being moved, he believed that the great heart of the people was not thinking about the matter at all. The movement at present was confined to a select circle, and though he did not know, he hoped that circle would continue to grow wider and wider (applause). After seeing so many men round that table whom he knew to be greatly interested in all that pertained to the intellectual growth and good of the country, he could not help thinking much better of the movement than he did when he entered the room. He thought that night might really be a memorable one in the literary history of Ireland and do a great deal of good. He did not expect, however, that the literature would be on entirely Irish subjects, nor did he consider the two admirable plays essentially Irish. The idea of selling one’s soul to the devil was common all over Europe, and the incidents of the play were such as might take place in a London or a Manchester drawing room. Then, he did not understand one word of the symbolism in the plays, and, though he might be considered a Philistine, he believed in sticking to things he understood, and avoiding those he did not. He repudiated the idea of striding after ideals which resulted in failure and ruin all round. He believed that the criticism of Mr. Yeats’ orthodoxy in the play arose from the fact that Mr. Yeats took one view of the results of selling the soul to the devil, while the critics took another: and that while the one took it in the light that selling the soul to the devil meant doing the devil’s work and corrupting others, Mr. Yeats’ woman character was a noble character who sold her soul in order to benefit another. They ought to remember that other writers — notably Mr. Standish O’Grady (applause) — had distinguished themselves in Irish literature; but he thought the present movement would be very useful in bringing literary men together, and that the sympathetic public, at first small in number, would ultimately become large. It depended upon people; but he would point out that neither in industry nor literature had the bulk of the Irish people ever done much for its leading men (applause).
John Henry Bernard
Rev. Dr. Bernard also responded. He had been invited, he presumed, to show that the hostility between religion and the stage was not irreconcilable. He believed there was no hostility between the Church and the Irish Literary Theatre. His presence there showed that some Churchmen at least believed that the stage, if inspired by lofty ideals such as Mr. Yeats had expressed and guided by sound principles, might play a great part in the development of national intelligence and character. He thought he might claim for Dublin University that during the three centuries of her life her sons had not been altogether destitute of the artistic, literary or dramatic faculty. It was sometimes good-humouredly suggested, chiefly he thought by those who had not the privileges of an academic training, that the atmosphere of that University was not favourable to the growth of the finest literary instincts. Well, he thought that the literary instincts of Goldsmith were good enough for most of them, and he doubted if the genius of “She Stoops to Conquer” had ever been surpassed in our generation. They could not claim Sheridan, but although he was brought up under the shadow of Trinity College he did not find the atmosphere stifling, as the “School for Scandal” testified. They have produced dramatists, not the greatest perhaps, because they were forgotten, though indeed in art all writers were forgotten in time. He did not believe in protection in literature. He believed that it was by free trade in literature, in science and in art that the highest expression of genius would be reached, and the best contribution to the world’s literature, science, and art made. However that might be, no true son of Ireland could have anything but a welcome for the advances made during the last fifty years, and , not least, by members of Trinity College. The history of Ireland was the common inheritance of Ireishmen, whatever their creed, political or religious. All attempts to promote a better knowledge of that history must fail if they were started in the interests of political parties, of or theological controversialists or literary cliques, and it was because he consider that the Irish Literary Theatre was started with no such intention that he believed and hoped it would produce a considerable influence on the future literary history of the country.
George Sigerson
Dr. Sigerson, in responding, said the Royal University had taken a step that their elder sister had refused, viz. the admittance of the other sex to all their privileges (hear, hear). Although Trinity College, as the “Mother of Universities,” might be considered the mother of the Royal, he preferred to trace the lineage of the latter back to that old Irish nation for whom University learning was the one passion of the soul (applause). In the earliest days of which they had authentic record, they find that Ireland was the centre of education, but in the present day the nation never had that free development which was so necessary for the spread of education. Elsewhere Universities had done something for the literature and language of the people from whom they had arisen, and why not here? Surely it was one of the first characteristics of a University that it should draw forth not only the qualities of the people who were around it, but inspire them with the great the higher heroic impulses of their progenitors. He did not agree with the first part of Mr. Yeats’s speech that evening, much as he admired the poetic beauty of the latter portion. With the Irish peasant religion was not a matter of emotion or of passion, but of eternal truth. The Irish peasants, unlike the characters in Mr. Yeats’ play, were ready to endure all for their religion (applause). They had on many occasions sacrificed their material interest, and what they valued still more, the opportunity for intellectual culture, for the sake of the creed which they profess. He belonged to that section of his University which was more in touch with the movements outside it, and as President of the Irish Literary Society he was keenly concerned with the achievements of his friends Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn. He believed with such intellectual activity as now exists that the long suffering and the sacrifices of the mass of the Irish people would receive at last its recompense (applause).
George Moore
Mr. George Moore proposed the toast of “The New Movement in Ireland,” coupled with the names of Dr. Douglas Hyde, Mr. J.F. Taylor, Mr. Anderson, secretary of the Agricultural Organization Society, and Mr. Standish O’Grady. He said — Gentlemen, the papers in my hand contain the text of my speech. I hope that this admission will not deprive me of your patient toleration. But not only this poor makeshift oratory, but my very presence in Dublin calls for explanation, even for apology, for like an intrusion must it seem, after an absence of many years. I feel conscious that I must seem like a man who, having deserted his mother for a long time, returns to her with effusion when he hears that she has become rich and powerful. You see that I do not mince my conduct, I place it in a lump before you, it is for me to regret and Ireland to forgive. Ireland, when I knew her, was engaged in a struggle for mere existence, with politics for sole distraction. I had no heart for politics, my heart was given from the very first to art. So I went to Paris. In the seventies art was still in Paris, and I lived there until the great artistic movement of 1830 died in the eighties. Then I returned to Ireland, but finding the country in the throes of a great political agitation, in which I was not qualified to take part, I went to England. Now art is beginning to fade from the English, as from the French horizon; but I notice that there is a glimmer in the Western air. The beautiful plays that we have witnessed this week are proof that art has once again visited Ireland after an interval of many centuries. But it may be asked if the return of art is an accidental deviation, or if art be following the course of her predestined circle. However this may be, the circumstances of this present revival agree perfectly with all the revivals of art which have hitherto taken place. If we go back to ancient Greece, we find that the art of Greek sculpture was preceded by an intense outburst of national energy in resisting the invader, and as soon as the Italians had driven the Goths out of Italy art began. In the life of every nation there is a moment of crystallization, and Italy crystallized in the art of Michael Angelo and Raphael and 50 other great painters and sculptors (hear, hear). The art of Veronese and Titian and Tintoretto represent better perhaps than Venice herself, the pomp and prosperity of commerce and conquest in the Adriatic. Art then seemed to disappear, but only to re-appear a century later in the Low Countries. After wearying wars, the Hollanders had at last succeeded in driving the Spaniards out of Holland. To do so, they had not hesitated to break down the sea-banks and let in the sea upon the invaders, and immediately afterwards the art of Hals and Rembrandt and as least 30 other painters, born all within 1590 and 1630, appeared, the perfect flower of a national ideal. The art of Sir Joshua and Gainsborough followed close upon the victories of Marlborough, and the 30 great artists that form the movement of 1830 in France were all born between the years 1790 and 1840, they were the symbol and sign of the Imperial aspirations of France, and the victories of Napoleon found complete expression in the painting of Ingres and David. When we have meditated upon and acquired a due comprehension of the significance of these historical facts, we cannot feel surprise that the agrarian revolt of the peasants under Parnell should be succeeded by an artistic movement. By an artistic movement, I mean a desire of art for its own sake. Money may be an accidental result of artistic endeavour, but money can never be the cause of artistic inspiration (hear, hear). All that is done for the sake of money is vile, whether in art or in love, and between the two different prostitutions it would not be worth any one’s while to distinguish. The Irish Literary Theatre is no commercial enterprise, and I would remind you that since the disappearance of the bards until the present week, Ireland has seen nothing but the theatrical speculations, scenery and Shakespeare, and the musical comedies, which have enabled African millionaires to digest long and elaborate dinners eaten at the Savoy. Laugh at our enterprise, scorn it or explain it away, the fact remains that for the first time for long centuries something has happened in Ireland that partakes neither of the nature of politics nor money nor vain amusement. But the revival of art in Ireland is not without political significance. We have seem that all the artistic periods have been preceded by heroic struggles for independence, for nationhood; in the pause that succeeds these the peasant settles down to organising and developing the wealth he has acquired, art blossoms all over the land, presenting the beautiful spectacle of an intellectual springtide — it was so in Greece, it was so in Italy, it was so in Holland, it was so in England, it was so in France — so in Ireland will it be. After a finance struggle the IRish peasant has obtained a hold on the land; he is practically in the position of the French peasant, and the question arises, with those who have helped him in his fight to obtain the land now help him to settle down to the development and enjoyment of the land he has acquired, or lead him off on a fresh venture? Will Mr. Davitt and Mr. Dillon and Mr. O’Brien continue to urge him on to another land war, and another disruption of society and embittering of class relations, or will they join with Mr. Horace Plunkett in inviting him to develop the property that the agrarian laws since 1880 put him in possession of, and in inviting him to co-operate with whatever other classes are left in Ireland in promoting their common welfare and rebuilding society? (Hear, hear.) If the production of “Countess Cathleen” and the “Heather Field,” the Loan Exhibition of pictures, and the Musical Festival which is due in Dublin at the end of this week, mean that art has come to Ireland, we may predict a pause in party politics; if the revival of interest in ancient language and the myths and traditions of the ancient people mean more than a flitting apparition of art, then the peaceful economics and policy of social reconstruction of Mr. Horace Plunkett, rather than the revival of old animosities, may be expected to fill the near future (hear, hear). I have not the necessary knowledge, nor is this the occasion to enter on a criticism of either method. It would seem, however, that after destruction must come reconstruction, and no politician, so far as I am aware, except Mr. Horace Plunkett, has ever come forward with any reconstructive policy in Ireland (hear, hear). Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Dillon, if I rightly interpret their utterances, do not pretend to any new ideas — they seem to believe in repetition of the old ideas; possibly they are right. Mr. Horace Plunkett, however, comes with a new set of ideas, with a new system of economics, especially adapted to the needs of modern Ireland, and one without which it is permissible to think the condition of the peasant will remain practically the same as it was, even if the politics of the gentlemen I have referred to were to win for him the entire soil of Ireland (hear, hear). The analogy between a system of rural banking and co-operative dairies and the poetry of Mr. Yeats is not obvious at first sight; but I think anyone who has listened to the little historical account which I have given of the rise and fall of artistic movements from the Greeks B.C. 450 to the romantic movement in France in 1830 will see that there is a connection. It would seem that the time has come for putting all the old ideas, whether of land agitation or of literature, behind us (applause). When I say old, I really mean those of the last two generations. To go back to mediaeval Ireland is well. It is a return to the methods of the two last generations that seems to me to be questionable. There have been since the ancient bards poets of merit, competent poets, poets whom I do not propose you should ever forget or think less of; but Ireland, so it seems to me, has had no poet who compares for a moment with the great poet of whom it is my honour to speak to-night. It is because that I believe that in the author of the “Countess Cathleen,” Ireland had discovered her ancient voice, that I have undertaken this journey from London, and consented to what I have hitherto considered to be the most disagreeable task that could befall me — a public speech. I should not have to put myself to the inconvenience of a public speech for anything in the world, except a great poet, that is to say a man of exceptional genius, who was born at a moment of great national energy. This was the advantage of Shakespeare and Victor Hugo as well as Mr. Yeats. The works of Mr. Yeats are not as yet, and probably never will be, as voluminous as those of either the French or English poet, but I cannot admit that they are less perfect. The art of writing a blank verse play is so difficult that none except Shakespeare and Mr. Yeats have succeeded in this form. This assertion will seem extravagant, but think a moment and you will see that it is nearer the truth than you will suppose. We must not be afraid of praising Mr. Yeats’ poetry too much; we must not hesitate to say that there are lyrics in the collected poems as beautiful as any in the world. We must be courageous in front of the Philistine and insist that the lyric entitled “Innisfree” is unsurpassable. Had the Irish poets who came before Mr. Yeats had the same advantage as Mr. Yeats, they might have written as well. We will give them the benefit of the doubt, and it is only fair to assume that Mr. Kipling, the poet that England is now celebrating, would not have written the most hideous verses ever written in a beautiful language, if he had not lived in a specially hideous moment, the moment of the African millionaire, when England, gorged with wealth, lusts for more, when thousands of Arabs are shot in the desert with machine guns — and the general who commanded in these shambles is greeted as a hero. In no other circumstances but the present would Mr. Kipling have been a disgraceful blot on the most beautiful poetic record in the world. England’s delight in a rhymer who expresses the lust of an African millionaire and the artistic taste of a drunken soldier returning from Hampstead, and England’s neglect of the author of the “Countess Cathleen” could only have happened at the same moment. I would not think that England is lapsed for ever into a rowdy mercenary, bent on the accomplishment of wide-world pillage, to the tune of the “Rowdy Dowdy Boys.” England often forgets her real greatness. The poetry of Tupper was once admired almost as universally as Mr. Kipling’s. To-day it is forgotten as completely as Mr. Kipling’s will be ten years hence (no, no). But 20 years hence this week in Ireland will be looked back to with reverence. Then things will have fallen back into their true perspective. The Saxon will have recovered from his bout of blackguardism, and will recognise with sorrow that while he was celebrating Mr. Kipling, Miss Corelli, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and Mr. Pinero, the Celt was celebrating in a poor wayside house the idealism of Mr. Yeats (applause).
Douglas Hyde
Dr. Douglas Hyde also responded, delivering an eloquent speech in the Irish language.
John Francis Taylor
Mr. J.F. Taylor, Q.C., in responding, said that Mr Horace Plunkett and Mr. Yeats were two gentlemen of whom they were properly proud (hear, hear); but they must certainly be men of well-balanced minds if the hurricane of praise beating upon them would not in some degree disturb their equanimity (laughter and applause). He did not think they did men good service by finding a Richelieu in every public man or a Shakespeare in every poet in whose real interest they were concerned (hear, hear). He believed that was not the finest way in which they could encourage Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn, who on his part seemed to bear his moment of a great triumph with a modestly worthy of his ability (loud applause). They had heard from a distinguished son of a distinguished father, Mr. George Moore, the reasons which had prompted him to return to Ireland, and they as shareholders in Ireland’s glory, must feel pleased that at last they had reached the level which Mr. Moore considered adequate to induce him to come among them again (laughter and applause). There were, however, matters of interest to the Irish which, perhaps, did not concern those to whom the world had been as easy as it had to Mr. Moore (laughter, and hear, hear). It was easy for him to talk of public men and condemn certain movements, because he had never felt the bitterness of soul, which had entered into the hearts and minds and lives of the people, and had never come face to face with conditions somewhat like to the groundwork of Mr. Yeats’s tragedy (hear, hear). People whose lives were easy could not sit in judgement upon a movement which was necessary to save the people of the country (applause). It was not by making appeals to a select few that the conditions of a national revival could arise. If they appealed to Caesar it must be in the language understanded of the people (hear, hear). If he had one complaint to make with regard to their dear friend, Dr. Shaw, it was that he did not recognize that his University had not done what it ought to have done with regard to Irish history (applause, and no, no). There was once a man, a great undeveloped man, but still a great man, Dr. Ritchie (applause), who fave profound, thoughtful, energetic lectures on the subject; but was there any national University from end to end of Europe which neglected the language, history, and literature of its own race? It was hard to say whether the garret, the lecture-room, or the friendly meetings of men of mark was best for the encouragement of genius. He believed that genius must work alone. SIlence and solitude were the only conditions under which great work could be done. It was spoken of as blameable to Ireland that the special centre of educational light in Ireland turned that light in other directions. They must remember that there had been carried on a great silent non-aggressive work. It was still going on. Great scholars had been produced there. A great Scholar and a great man was at present at the head of the College; but it was the greatest pity that the great national University had never given any encouragement to the real study of Ireland itself. He was proud of the literary activity which had prevailed in Ireland for some time past, and he thought Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn deserved great praise (applause). Mr. Standish O’Grady was the pioneer to a large extent of that movement, and he deserved exceedingly well of them (applause). So also, notwithstanding his modesty, did their dear old friend Mr. John O’Leary (applause). These and other gentlemen had given to Mr. Yeats that spirit of emulation at a time when many people did not recognise so much promise in his work. It was a happy thing for them to come together to welcome and encourage the two gentlemen who had done so much and done it so well (applause); but let them do it with moderation, not for the purpose of making them believe that their work was over, but to let them know they looked upon what they had done as a pledge that they would go on with the work, and make it, at least, adequate to the claims for the expansion of the Irish feeling, the Irish sentiment, and the Irish aspirations (applause).
Standish O’Grady
Mr. Standish O’Grady, in reply, said he was glad to tell them that the agricultural and economical movement in this country was making very decided progress. Creameries had been established, and he thought these would eventually tend to the betterment of the country. In that movement high and low, Protestant and Catholic, and men of all classes of society came together and worked in harmony for the benefit of the country. Already in the North of Ireland it had abolished nearly all the sectional differences and bitternesses between the different parties there (applause). This was the first of the movements to which their attention had been directed. Then they had the Irish literary movement. He would not refer to it at length, but he congratulated Mr. Yeats and Mr. Martyn upon the great success which it had achieved. He would expect from all this that a great political movement would grow up, but it had not assumed any form or substance as yet. When it did grow up he expected that it would embrace the whole of Ireland, and such a movement, with the whole of Ireland at its back, would exert a great political power over the Imperial Parliament. Through that power they would be able to accomplish everything they desired. There were no signs, indeed, upon the surface of events that such a movement was growing, but he believed it was growing all the same. Behind the political movement, and supported by it, there would, he believed, arise a military movement, comparable to that which set their ancestors in motion in the eighteenth century (applause). At that time the country was suffering from many oppressions, and these men came together and armed themselves in order to obtain relief. The reason for this political movement was perfectly evident. At the present time Ireland had to pay her proportion of the volunteer system of England, Scotland, and Wales, while at the same time we were not permitted to have volunteers. Then, they had the economic movement, which was going on splendidly. He thought the literary movement was yet dubious. These things might be mere dreams, but at the same time he believed in them. He would ask them to remember, when being jubilant over their literary realisations, that their people were perishing and disappearing out of the country at a rate of 25,000 per annum. This did not represent the old, the feeble, the decrepit, or the young, but all the strong young men and women who had the courage of mind of their race. Mr. Yeats’ and Mr. Martyn’s audiences were made up of the people who would support the movement to which he had referred, but these very people were disappearing from the country. What was going to be the end of all this? If things went on as they were going at present the result was plain enough — the country would be left to graziers and herds, and a large proportion of its land would be let out in forests in the occupation of British and American millionaires..
Robert Andrew Anderson
Mr. Anderson, in reply, regretted deeply, as he was sure they all regretted, the absence of the worthy president of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, Mr. Horace Plunkett. The policy of that Society might be regarded by some as a humdrum bread and butter one, but, at all events, their idea was to improve the prosperity of the country, and they believed that the best means of introducing these higher ideals, of which they had heard so much, was by improving the material condition of the people. Already their work had done some good. They had formed 380 Associations, with a membership of 40,000 of what they might call the cream of Irish farmers. Above all things, they tried to impress on the people that the success of co-operation depended, not so much on the making of money as upon the making of character. The Association had the support of all the leaders of thought in Ireland on its side. Gentlemen had supported their policy, not because they regarded it as a bread and butter one, but because they regarded it as a sure foundation on which they might build up their ideals. This literary movement the Association regarded as an important agency in the success of their movement, as they considered that the future prosperity of the country lay in the education of the people.
Robert Yelverton Tyrrell
Dr. Tyrell, in proposing the health of the chairman, said he thought that Dublin University had not had that credit done to it that it deserved. For instance, they could boast of the chairman, Dr. Hyde, Mr. Standish O’Grady, Dr. Shaw, Dr. Bernard, and many others, all of whom had reflected credit upon the University and upon the country. He could not claim Mr. Yeats for Dublin University, and he was sorry for that. He had listened with such delight as he had seldom experienced to that “prose-poem” — he could use no other expression — to which they had been treated that evening by Mr. Yeats. He himself had been blamed for giving so much of his time to Greek and Roman literature. He remembered well once in a tramcar being remonstrated with by a friend who chided him for not knowing Irish. His friend said the only word that could rightly hit off an action he had been describing was an Irish word — “Gauche” (laughter). He had entered the room in a more or less commonplace frame of mind, but the speeches he had heard, and the conversation of his right-hand neighbour, Mr. George Moore, had gradually lifted him into an appreciation of the generous idealism with which this movement was inspired (applause).
Thomas Patrick Gill
Mr. Gill, in response, said that what gratified him most about the assembly was the contrariety of opinion and the plain speaking which had been indulged in, without their ruffling each other's temper. These free interchanges of opinion between Irishmen who thought for themselves tended to bring into greater prominence the thoughts on which they were in agreement, and to relegate to a sphere in which they would continue to enjoy them, such thoughts as parted them on ordinary occasions (applause).
The proceedings then terminated.
Source: Curated by George Moore Interactive LLC (georgemooreinteractive.org) — Shared for research, educational, and personal use.