Culture Of Celts.

The Culture Of The Celts

There are very few clues as to the lifestyle and culture of the people who inhabited Ireland at the end of the Stone Age. Far away in central Europe at the north of the Alps, at around 1000 BCE there lived a warlike people, named by their enemies as Keltoi tribes, a name they also adopted for themselves. Linguistics research relates this word to “warriors”. These peoples, according to evidence found, were uniquely horse riders which had given them an advantage in warfare and travel.

They journeyed across Europe and fortified and conquered large areas which they made their own. One of these areas was Hallstatt in Austria where large-scale salt mining took place which made the location a most important trading area. Those who lived and worked in Hallstatt were an enormously prosperous people who made great ceremony of displaying wealth and opulence in their attire, jewellery, tools, customs and burial ceremonies. The power base of these warlords extended along the valley of the upper Danube progressively, over a century, moving east to west to create an area known as the country of the Keltoi. The development of trade routes meant further prosperity for these tribes of metalworking, cattle, slave and gold trading entrepreneurs.

Lust for land was the primary motive of the aggressive Celts clearly satisfied to eliminate all in their path to accumulate land, wealth and power. However, around the ninth century BCE, with the arrival of iron and its use in weapon manufacturing, came the true source of power for Celtic expansion. Large iron working centres were established, around the 6^th century BCE to manufacture weapons, tools and jewellery all adorned with gold and silver. These aesthetic but functional items were uniquely Celtic in design, shape and appearance. This is known as the ‘La Tene’ period when the Celts were renowned for power, wealth, brutality and desire for artistic beauty in clothing, jewellery, armoury and transport.

It was perhaps inevitable that Celtic tribes conquering Europe were not only at war with their common enemies but also at war with each other. The great migrations from the 6th century BCE meant that many of these tribes crossed paths and went to war to secure territory. A rapid increase in populations meant that ambitious younger male tribal warriors had desires to form their own tribes and acquire their own lands. This, in fact, means that as these tribes slowly but surely crossed Europe they also segmented as parts of the tribe move forward while others stayed behind. Some tribes headed north to now modern day Paris while others went east re-crossing the Rhine. Burial customs along these routes suggest the interconnection between these tribes. The northern tribes sought new territories and moved westward and as they spread their settlements they would have encountered indigenous peoples who had been descendants of the original Celtic tribes of some six centuries earlier.

The Romans tended to call the Celts by the name “Gauls” which was a corruption or slang form of “gal” meaning one of ability or valour. Those tribes that remained in France were known as Gauls. Meanwhile the new tribe known as ‘Belgae’ or ‘furious ones ‘ emerged from central Germany and quickly gained a reputation of being barbaric, brutal and bloodthirsty land grabbers. All across Europe new tribes were increasing in strength and influence at such a pace that the Romans saw them as a single Celtic culture even though many of these tribes where independent of each other were independent of each other. The Celtic influence soon spread in all directions but mostly West and South Europe as the tribes established themselves in strong hill forts scattered in thousands of locations across mainland Europe. These populations grew so rapidly that a 5^th century BCE population explosion meant tribes were rapidly advancing toward European coastlines.

The first written reports of the geography of Europe concerns a voyage around part of the Atlantic Coast sometime around the year 530 B.C.E. which was later reported upon in Greek and this text gives a few insights into prehistory. It’s accuracy in relation to the size of Europe and the islands beyond is far from correct. In relation to Britain and Ireland the text is extremely vague and difficult to decipher boss, interestingly, some historians argue that there are references within the text to the Cliffs of Dover. Ireland, which they referred to as ‘Hierni’; a word derived from an old Celtic language meaning land or soil. The Greeks called the island ‘Hivera’ meaning “sacred isle”; an island rich in green pastures amid the  waves. Britain was heavily populated with tribes who had arrived earlier from northern France in the fourth century B.C.E. and these migrants became known in time as Brigantes or ‘high ones’ naming themselves after the Celtic mother goddess Briganti. These tribes brought with them iron weapons and tools similar to those later found across the sea in Ireland. Archaeological evidence suggests that warriors used such weapons in the fifth century B.C.E. but it is most likely that these weapons came from displaced peoples from Britain who were pushed forward by the arriving Celts. The full impact of Celtic culture was not felt in Ireland for another century or so.

The social structure of Celtic society was tribal which most Celts considering themselves to be descended from the same divine ancestor which was their common bond and right to be members of their tribe. The social structures varied from tribe to tribe boss each tribe had three distinct classes; the nobility, commoners and slaves or bondmen who were captives taken in war. Economic pursuits were mostly agricultural but also there appears to have been a significant amount of trading between tribes who met at places of public assembly used for seasonal religious ceremony and bartering. To the Greeks the Celts were a bewildering race who were unprejudiced and vegetarians. The Greeks wrote that the Celts were ‘fat conscious’ people who punished and a young man with a big belly. However, such tall tales were perhaps the propaganda of enemy tribes. Aristotle praised the Celts for their courage but added that they were rash to the point of madness. Aristotle also questioned the sexual mores of the Celts, claiming that they openly approve of physical connection with their fellow males. Celts were often portrayed as uncivilized, Plato saw then as drunkards and Ephorus castigated them for going to war with the sea to prove that they are unafraid of any enemy. However, the ferocity of the Celts in battle can not be doubted and this late to great demand for their warriors.

From most accounts it seems that the Celts were tall in stature with moist white skin. They had golden hair and cultivated beards and used gold for personal ornamentation. They wore tunics dyed in various colours, striped cloaks, trousers and straps, buckles, belts and chains. The dining habits of the Celts are also well documented and it seems feasting was a common occurrence. While some accounts claim that the Celts were vegetarians other accounts are emphatic that they were ardent meat eaters. They were also very heavy drinkers and aggressive drunks who went into duals to the death rather than prolonged verbal argument. They considered it a glory to die and a disgrace to survive without victory. In the event of a battle they would lay down their weapons and retire if their leader was defeated. They were generous by disposition and every man’s house was open to all comers and food would be shared as if the stranger were a member of the family. The writer Strabo thought them naïve but subservient and loyal to their leaders. Pytheas, a mariner and explorer,  thought them as exotic and from a sacred place where the sun sleeps. The ancient Greeks, from Homer spoke of them coming from Elysian, a heavenly place, and the Greeks themselves were influenced by this thinking and from this came the characterisation of Ireland as a sacred island. Reports such as this lead to the imaginations of classical writers who depicted a ‘strange island’ inhabited by strange people in the Celtic mist. The Celts were primarily sun worshipers but they also talk of rivers as being a principal fertilizing aspect of life and were worshiped by naming them after their goddesses. There was also widespread tendency to associate wells and springs with goddesses, paired with male deities and the importance of this appears to be the coupling of the male sky with female or so as to ensure fruitfulness. Each deity had a specific function such as the production of rain, sun, crops, fertility and the guaranteeing of social and commercial contracts. The sound was the ultimate father and ear was the ultimate mother and this doctrine was protected by the wise men of the Celts. These wise men were the singers and poets known Bards, Vates who acted as communicators with the Gods to determine sacrifice and Druids who were experts in the science of nature. The most prestigious of these were the Druids. They were divinely inherited ‘mediators’ with the spirit world and held in supreme esteem. A King functioned as a substitute for a deity and was the ‘husband’ of the earth goddess but the elevated position of King was very much controlled and dictated by the Druids. If the King was doing his job properly then the tribe would be happy and the reverse could result in the removal of the King by the Druid. It is clear from this that the Celts were a very superstitious people vulnerable to the mercy of the Druids which placed them at the centre of the social order an in control of the space between the King and the Gods. The Druids had, according to some accounts, magical powers and could cast spells over warrior tribes that prevented warfare. However, such power is invested in the Druids by the commoners terrified of offending or provoking the Gods by ignoring the Druids. One has no way of tracing how these Druids became so powerful within their tribes or what is the chronology of the Celtic religion, myths and practises. The Druids assembled at locations such as forest clearings known as Nemeton (sky-place) where the trees climbed upwards and connected the sky to the earth. It is also interesting that the Druids thought (according to Caesar) that all people are descended from one divine ancestor and for this reason they count periods of time not by number of days but by the number of nights. The night is followed by the day and not the other way around. This implies a connection between the darkness of night and the ancestral lord. It also implies that time is absent with the sun as it sunk to abide with the dead. The Celts, according to some Greek writers, spent their nights near the tombs of their dead where they awaited inspiration which emanated from darkness and thus reconciled the living with the dead. There were separate deities for daylight and night-time hours and the latter seemed to have dark powers while the former had powers of fertility and life giving influences. The Druids taught that life is eternal, even after death, and thus disposed of the earthly possessions of their dead. They even allowed tribesmen to defer debt or completion of business until their arrival in the next world. The afterlife was not perceived as sad and dreary but happy and a new and valuable place of existence. Such beliefs may account for the valour of the Celts who have a disregard for life and will fight to the death just to make passage to the next world. According to Diodorus Siculus , the Celts were wont to resort to fighting on the least provocation, regard their lives as nothing.

Primary Source

The Celts – A Chronological History

Dáithí Ó Hógáin.

Public Sphere.

Jurgen Habermas

Jürgen Habermas was born June 18, 1929 and is a German sociologist, geographer and philosopher in the tradition of critical theory and pragmatism. He is perhaps best known for his theory on the concepts of ‘communicative rationality’ and the ‘public sphere’. His work focuses on the foundations of social theory and epistemology, the analysis of advanced capitalistic societies and democracy, the rule of law in a critical social-evolutionary context, and contemporary politics, particularly German politics. Habermas’s theoretical system is devoted to revealing the possibility of reason, emancipation, and rational-critical communication latent in modern institutions and in the human capacity to deliberate and pursue rational interests. Habermas is known for his work on the concept of modernity, particularly with respect to the discussions of “rationalization” originally set forth by Max Weber. While influenced by American pragmatism, action theory, and even poststructuralism, many of the central tenets of Habermas’ thought remain broadly Marxist in nature. Global polls identified him as one of the leading intellectuals of the present.

The public sphere is a realm in which public opinion can be formed. Access is guaranteed to all and examples of this occur wherever two or more people assemble to form a public body. Citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion with the guarantee of freedom of assembly and association and the freedom of expression about matters of general interest. Today newspapers and magazines, radio and television are the media of the public sphere. The public sphere has the freedoms fought for in the past and since that time has made democracy possible.

There is no evidence that European society possessed a public sphere as a unique realm until after the late Middle Ages. Feudal lords represented themselves as agents of higher powers. The feudal authorities (church, prince, and nobility) started to disintegrate by the end of the 18th century and a division of public and private spheres. The church (since the reformation) became a separate entity to either public or private spheres. Most contemporary conceptualizations of the public sphere are based on the ideas expressed in Jürgen Habermas’ book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere – An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.

The German term Öffentlichkeit (Public Sphere) encompasses a variety of meanings and it implies a spatial concept, the social sites or arenas where meanings are articulated, distributed, and negotiated, as well as the collective body constituted by, and in this process, “the public.” The work is still considered the foundation of contemporary public sphere theories, and most theorists cite it when discussing their own theories.

The bourgeois public sphere may be conceived above all as the sphere of private people come together as a public; they soon claimed the public sphere regulated from above against the public authorities themselves, to engage them in a debate over the general rules governing relations in the basically privatized but publicly relevant sphere of commodity exchange and social labor. Through this work, he gave a historical-sociological account of the creation, brief flourishing, and demise of a “bourgeois” public sphere based on rational-critical debate and discussion. Habermas stipulates that, due to specific historical circumstances, a new civic society emerged in the eighteenth century.

Driven by a need for open commercial arenas where news and matters of common concern could be freely exchanged and discussed – accompanied by growing rates of literacy, accessibility to literature, and a new kind of critical journalism – a separate domain from ruling authorities started to evolve across Europe. “In its clash with the arcane and bureaucratic practices of the absolutist state, the emergent bourgeoisie gradually replaced a public sphere in which the ruler’s power was merely represented before the people with a sphere in which state authority was publicly monitored through informed and critical discourse by the people.” In his historical analysis, Habermas points out three so-called “institutional criteria” as preconditions for the emergence of the new public sphere. The discursive arenas, such as Britain’s coffee houses, France’s salons and Germany’s Tischgesellschaften “may have differed in the size and compositions of their publics, the style of their proceedings, the climate of their debates, and their topical orientations”, but “they all organized discussion among people that tended to be on-going; hence they had a number of institutional criteria in common”:

1. Disregard of status: Preservation of “a kind of social intercourse that, far from presupposing the equality of status, disregarded status altogether. Not that this idea of the public was actually realized in earnest in the coffee houses, salons, and the societies; but as an idea it had become institutionalized and thereby stated as an objective claim. If not realized, it was at least consequential.”
2. Domain of common concern: “… discussion within such a public presupposed the problematization of areas that until then had not been questioned. The domain of ‘common concern’, which was the object of public critical attention, remained a preserve in which church and state authorities had the monopoly of interpretation. The private people for whom the cultural product became available as a commodity profaned it inasmuch as they had to determine its meaning on their own (by way of rational communication with one another), verbalize it, and thus state explicitly what precisely in its implicitness for so long could assert its authority.”
3. Inclusivity: However exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely and become consolidated as a clique; for it always understood and found itself immersed within a more inclusive public of all private people, persons who – insofar as they were propertied and educated – as readers, listeners, and spectators could avail themselves via the market of the objects that were subject to discussion. The issues discussed became ‘general’ not merely in their significance, but also in their accessibility: everyone had to be able to participate. Wherever the public established itself institutionally as a stable group of discussants, it did not equate itself with the public but at most claimed to act as its mouthpiece, in its name, perhaps even as its educator – the new form of bourgeois representation”.

Habermas argued that the Bourgeois society cultivated and upheld these criteria. The public sphere was well established in various locations including coffee shops and salons, areas of society where various people could gather and discuss matters that concerned them. The coffee houses in London society at this time became the centres of art and literary criticism, which gradually widened to include even the economic and the political disputes as matters of discussion. In French salons, as Habermas says, “opinion became emancipated from the bonds of economic dependence.” Any new work, or a book or a musical composition had to get its legitimacy in these places. It not only paved a forum for self-expression, but in fact had become a platform for airing one’s opinions and agendas for public discussion.

Parliamentary Action under Charles VII Of France: The emergence of bourgeois public sphere was particularly supported by the 18th century Liberal democracy making resources available to this new political class to establish a network of institutions like publishing enterprises, newspapers and discussion forums, and the democratic press was a main tool to execute this. The key feature of this public sphere was its separation from the power of both the church and the government due to its access to a variety of resources, both economic and social. This collapse was due to the consumerist drive that infiltrated society, so they became more concerned about consumption than political actions, and the capitalistic drive of the mass media. Suddenly the media became a tool of political forces, and a medium for advertisement rather than the medium from which the public got their information on political matters. As Habermas argues, in due course, this sphere of rational and universalistic politics, free from both the economy and the State, was destroyed by the same forces that initially established it.

The growth of capitalistic economy led to an uneven distribution of wealth, thus widening the economic polarity. This resulted in limiting access to the public sphere and the political control of the public sphere was inevitable for the modern capitalistic forces to operate and thrive in the competitive economy. Therewith emerged a new sort of influence, i.e., media power, which, used for purposes of manipulation, once and for all took care of the innocence of the principle of publicity. The public sphere, simultaneously pre-structured and dominated by the mass media, developed into an arena infiltrated by power in which, by means of topic selection and topical contributions, a battle is fought not only over influence but over the control of communication flows that affect behaviour while their strategic intentions are kept hidden as much as possible.

Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution.

Although the Industrial Revolution had been on-going since the middle of the 18th century with every economy depending on production of clothes, tools and utensils, most of this work was done on a small scale in rural homes or small workshops. By the early 19th Century the banks system became sophisticated, transport systems elaborate and roads opened up to expand markets. Urbanisation was on the increase and as the population expanded so did the demand for manufactured goods. The number of people working in cities continued to rise and mechanised production meant faster and more efficient delivery to market of demanded goods.

Slowly but surely factory production transformed the way Europeans lived. Factory workers had to endure appalling hardships and abuse and they saw themselves as a class with interests defined by shared work experience. Workers demanded social and Political reform and proclaimed the equality of all people, the dignity of Labour and the evils of Capitalism. The first socials began to emerge and challenged the existing economy and the social and Political order. The transformation of the European economy is known as the Industrial Revolution.

The reality of the Revolution is a little different than the name suggests. The Revolution began, not in factories, but in small rural towns and villages around Europe. Increased agricultural productivity in rural areas helped sustain a larger population. In turn, an increase in population generated greater consumer demand for manufactured goods now transported with relative ease to Man places by trains and steamships across the Western continent. The rise in populations of all countries across Europe also contributed in a significant way to the Industrial Revolution. Agricultural production continued to sustain this rise in population and permitted the accumulation of wealth. More land came under cultivation and farm yields increased in most of Europe.

Remarkable improvements in Transportation also contributed to the transformations of the Industrial Revolution. In Britain Railway, construction and operation brought other benefits to the expanding British economy. It spurred the metallurgical industry, reduced shipping costs, increased tourism, and the hotel and hospitality business. The Industrial Revolution affected most of Western Europe, more than it did the countries of Southern and Eastern Europe. Countries that were densely populated and urbanised faired best.

The Revolution began in Britain when capital-intensive farming began to transform English agriculture. Britain was blessed with coal and iron ore deposits located near water transportation, which meant that raw materials could be transported with relative ease. Former rich colonial trade provided capital investment. British entrepreneurs were self-financed and it was easier to begin a company because Government ensured fewer social barriers by adopting a general policy of non-interference. Government also continued to invest in full transportation systems, which aided traders, Manufacturers, and merchants. Mechanisation led the Industrial Revolution and carried along other industries in its wake. Cotton clothing was in fashion and it accounted for a major part of Britain’s exports in the first half of the 19th Century.

France was the second leading economy in the world. Deprived of natural resources like coal and iron ore it was more expensive to transport goods. Population increases were not as big as in the United Kingdom so demand was not on the increase. The Banking system was rudimentary and the primary function of the French bank was to loan money to the state. Textiles were the catalyst for Industrial development with high fashion goods and fine furniture being in great demand by the middle classes.

Rural industry spurred by a modest level of urban growth remained essential to French economic growth. Taxes on commerce and industry remained low and Government provided a decisive push in the launching of railways in France, purchasing lands in which tracks were to pass. Bankruptcy laws became lenient eliminating the humiliation of incarceration as a penalty. ‘Anonymous Societies’ where investors could legally create investment partnerships with strangers were encouraged by new legislation and the Government also pleased the businessmen by crushing insurrections by republicans and strikes were kept illegal.

Germany had lagged behind Britain and France during the years of the Industrial Revolution. There were three main reasons for this; the multiplicity of independent states, the amounts of tolls and customs that had to be paid by wagons or boats carrying merchandise had to pay monopolies held over production of and distribution of goods. Yet, in the mid 1830s textile Manufacturing started to develop and berlin started to emerge as a centre of machine production. Coal mining and iron production developed and Prussia began to take a more active role in private enterprise. The bank of Prussia began extending credit, other German banks followed this move with sweeping changes to taxes, and tariffs that would encourage entrepreneurship and thus the Industrial Revolution in the German states came into being.

Elsewhere in Europe the Revolution was slow to arrive because most countries remained rural based small communities with undeveloped resources and insignificant Political attention. Entrepreneurs had great difficulty raising finance and there was little or no investment in these economies. There were some exceptions but none very significant. Spain was slow to industrialise itself because of inadequate transportation and laws that discouraged investment. There were few navigable rivers and an absent railway system prevented the Industrial Revolution from having any major impact on the Spanish economy.

Russia had a tiny middle class population and being that the majority of citizens were serfs bounded for life on land owned by others there was little enthusiasm for development. Their bondage made it impossible to develop as entrepreneurs and for the few entrepreneurs that did exist there was only a small workforce to choose from. The transport system was rudimentary and Government had issues with freedom of movement for citizens so little money was spent on transportation. Serviceable roads were designed and built for military purposes and boats were not steam driven. Hostility toward Industrialisation remained entrenched in Russia and this was mostly orchestrated by the Orthodox Church.

Most European middle class people were very much influenced by the Industrial Revolution. They were, for the most part, Liberals with the family as the basis for social order. Men and women had clear and distinct separate spheres. Frugality had little place in middle class life. They lived in a culture of comfort by comparison to the lower classes. Outside of Russia most middle class people across Europe had comfortable lives and held a great range of positions, occupations, educational levels and expectations.

Entrepreneurs were revered and emulated while the nobles were denounced for making money (from the land they owned) while sleeping. Hard work was seen as virtuous and the middle classes struggled to avoid shame of bankruptcy and so mostly prospered and created employment. The ‘self made Man’ was  a noble ideal but it remained difficult to be upwardly mobile and only a few elevated beyond upper middle class. Recession or ill health could mean overnight poverty for the self made Man and his family so they were perceived as ‘men of straw’ whose wealth and power could vanish in an instant. Crisis and disaster was a permanent threat to their position on the social ladder.

Urban growth led to an increase in demand for professionals who were held in high esteem but in reality earned very little money. Lawyers (Notary publics) charged fees up to ten per cent the value of property and estates and were very up to date with client’s financial circumstances. Doctors were limited in the treatments at their disposal, which also contributed to the professions lack of prestige. In Western Europe Doctors began to form professional associations to encourage standardised training and professional identity. Other professions such as Accountants and solicitors gradually commanded respect. As the growing reach of the state required more officials and bureaucrats the middle classes were provided with careers of prestige.

The middle classes believed that families offered the best guarantee of social order. Marriages of common class were desirable because they enhanced family wealth and position within Society. To ensure the future of the children parents began to practise contraception. Domesticity of women for 19th Century middle classes was standard. Women only worked outside of the house in their husbands businesses. Men provided for and assured the future for all the family. A woman’s status was tied to that of her father and husband. Middle class women cared for their children, planned and oversaw the preparation of meals, supervised the servants and attended to family social responsibilities. Middle class feminists began to challenge female legal and Political subordination and demanded the right to vote. Opponents of women’s rights identified the feminist movement with French Revolutionaries and militants and therefore unrespectable.

European middle classes gradually shaped a culture based on comfort. Homes were usually decorated elegantly with ornaments and furniture passed down from one generation to the next. Men were dressed in black suits and cashmere scarfs and women dressed simply but jewellery Demonstrated family wealth. Expanding readership encouraged a proliferation of novels, newspapers and journals. Travel for pleasure became more common for the middle classes and was seen as a means of self improvement.

Secondary education provided a common cultural background for the middle classes in Britain. The victory of the entrepreneurial ideal was reflected in school curriculums. However, many believed that the ‘college of life’ was the best education of all. In France some parents took their children from school at an early age (11 or 12) and considered academic education as being irrelevant to the common tasks of life. Private schools operated by the Clergy were strong in catholic countries and the middle classes sent their daughters to learn about the arts and domestic skills while boys went to learn about sport and Manual skills. France was opposed to religious influence in education and legislation demanded that schools taught secular, nationalistic values. Churches had greater control in Germany, Spain and Italy. Educational systems did teach reading and writing and literacy was consequently on the increase across Europe.

Religious ideals played an important part in the middle class view of the world. There was some strong disenchantment with organised Religion but Christianity and morality were permanently linked throughout Europe, middle class women manifested a much higher rate of religious observance than did men. Many men and women deplored the materialism that lured people away from the church. Religion was also perceived as a way of moralising workers by teaching them self respect. Charitable activities were also an important part of middle class life. Charities were often closely tied to Religion. Impressive efforts to aid the suppressed paupers suffering appalling conditions were common. Such charitable work, mostly aimed at children, also offered a chance at indoctrination.

While the Industrial Revolution changed the way people lived these changes were by no means fast to occur. Most rural people in Europe were not landowners and only had occasional work on farms. Rural protest increased as farm machinery took over jobs and rendered local workers obsolete. Rural poverty weighed heavily across the continent. Property owners were murdered to avoid payment of taxes and duties. Rural people were hungry and angry as they lost their land, livelihoods and families.

The first half of the 19th Century brought about a marked urbanisation of the European populations. The percentage of people who lived in towns and cities rose rapidly as work in rural areas lessened a mass exodus to the cities and employment took place. Smaller towns started to grow too and Industrial towns grew rapidly but commercial and administrative centres too gained population. The poorer districts quickly became over crowded as cheaper properties were constructed to house workers in the inner city where they can be put to work nearby. The middle class elite lived away from the inner city and densely populated suburbs and opted for country life on the outskirts of the cities and alienated themselves from the common workforce. To these upper classes urban growth seemed threatening. Social segregation intensified within cities. Industrial pollution altered residential patterns and the wealthy moved away from the city to enjoy vast country gardens.

Death outnumbered birth in most large European cities and immigration of peasants and unskilled workers meant that Native residents were a minority. Immigrants lived in areas sharing with others from their own countries. Between 1916 and 1850 at least Five million Europeans travelled across seas, particularly during ‘the hungry Forties’ which hit Europe hard and Ireland even harder. One and a half million people left Ireland from 1835 to 1850 while over two million people died during the Potato famine. Following the Irish were the Germans, Norwegians and Russians. Improvements in transportation meant further distances could be travelled and consequently the phenomenon of ‘seasonal migration took men even further while leaving families at home.

Domestic service was the largest category of female employment in Western Europe. Country women spun and wove wool, linen and cotton and worked in fields or gardens while taking care of their children. Urban women tended to work in fabric mills using skills they learned in their rural homes. Women worked for half of what their male counterparts earned and that was a major reason for their employment, in short, if a woman could do the job then a Man would not be hired. Wage Labour changed the dynamics of Society and broke down the old rules of sphere and traditional views of a woman’s place being in the home. Women with families who could not work or could only work part time had to supplement their income by becoming prostitutes. They could earn more money for sexual favours and many women were therefore attracted to the profession.

Children had always worked in agriculture and from a young age they were sent to work in factories too. Factory work often employed entire families with the adult male supervising other family members. Long days of labor were perceived by many as instilling discipline instead of idleness, which encouraged sin and criminality. There were numerous attempts to impose new laws to protect children but these were difficult to enforce as employers and willing cash-strapped parents flouted the laws without fear of chastisement.

The ‘happy’ view of the Industrial Revolution was that it improved life for everybody by increasing employment and lowering prices. The ‘unhappy’ view is that Industrial Capitalism was making life miserable for workers and their families as the number of people needing jobs and wages grew faster than jobs and pay. Mechanisation all but terminated artisanship and work was so seasonal that many suffered for extended periods throughout the year. The gap between rich and poor widened as upper class people earned quadruple the amounts of their lower class counterparts. For immigrants from rural societies the sense of community spirit that helped them through lean periods was now gone. Inexpensive housing for workers was constructed to maximise profits for capitalists. Families lived in vile environments with smells of raw sewage, garbage and, in many cases, Industrial sewage. Seasonal climate changes caused serious ailments and many people died of contagious diseases.

Workers began to think of themselves as ‘working classes’ with different interests to other classes. They had a sense of community based on a belief in the dignity of Labour. Artisans and specialists started to form Guilds that restricted entry into certain trades without apprenticeships. Gradual mechanisation of trades brought protest. The response was a number of illegal secret societies determined to destroy the machinery that deprived them of their livelihood. The so-called ‘Luddies’ wanted a return to the old ways and thought obliteration of machinery was the way to achieve this. Machinery was ‘the Devil’s invention’ and the committed secret societies were oblivious to the pointlessness of their moral campaign against evil. However, the existence of such secret societies across Europe suggests that artisans and workers were becoming united in a common cause.

Workers associations helped shape working class consciousness and militancy. They also became the foundations of fledgling trade unions. Members sought to protect wages and improve conditions. Most unions found membership in skilled workers because unskilled could not afford dues. Skilled workers were also more anxious to protect their trades. Liberty, fraternity and equality was the battle cry of the Unions, which was a heritage from the French Revolution. In Britain, as a result of the pressures on Government placed by the Unions, the ‘Reform Bill’ (1832) which expanded the number of those eligible to vote (but not common workers) was introduced. The exclusion of workers from voting only served to unite them even more in their struggle for equality. Soon, many people accepted the inevitability of Capitalism and were now demanding their fair share of the profit pie.

Advancing Industrialisation transformed economy and Society along with transformations in thoughts and attitudes. One of the most salient results of this was the emergence of the movement known as Socialism. Essentially there were two distinct types of socialist; Utopian and Practical. Utopian Socialism was a consequence of economic Liberalism, according to some analysts of the Industrial Revolution. Utopian socialists were critical over the living conditions of the poor. Egotistic individualism of acquisition, say the Utopians, is wrong because it lacked cooperation. They championed the power of science and technology to construct new social and Political institutions.

One French theorist, Henry De Saint Simon, suggested, “If all nobles and elite were wiped out in a ship wreck the consequences for France would be inconsiderable. However, if France lost its artisans, learned men and productive farmers the consequences for France would be disastrous. He further postulated that Mankind could anticipate a better future where science would solve material problems in harmony with an era of moral improvement. For this to occur; people of talent should be freed from the shackles of restraints placed upon them by nobles. De saint Simon contemporary, Charles Fourier (1772-1837) argued that the art of selling was the practise of lies and deception. He claimed that history moves in cycles toward a more perfect future. He proposed a commune (Phalanx) type of lifestyle where people could live and work together in one unit to survive and live life to its best. British Utopian, Robert Owen, believed that Education and environment could share a spirit of cooperation. He built a mill in Scotland, provided decent housing and established schools for children.

The most popular Utopian socialist was Frenchman Etienne Cabet who sought to apply the principles of Christianity to problems of the day. His imaginary city and vision of economic and social organisation that would covert to principles of cooperation and association. He moved to America with some of his supporters and set up colonies in Texas and Iowa. Cabet was a Communist and had been involved in Communistic publications prior to his departure and thus saw Communism as the Utopian ideal.

Practical Socialists saw the bourgeois as ‘non-producers and workers as producers. Feminists believed that emancipation of women could only come with the emancipation of their ‘kindred spirits’ the workers. One feminist socialist, Flora Tristan (1801-1844) campaigned against women’s inequality in marriage and in law. She linked feminism and socialism and campaigned for female emancipation. Louis Blance (1812-1882) wanted Governments to give scientists a free hand in applying their talents to the betterment of the human condition. The state should also guarantee workers the ‘right to work’, employment in times of stress and a decent wage in the face of unchecked competition. Pierre Joseph Prouduor (1804-1865) wanted the state abolished. The existence of the state was the reason why Capitalism exploited workers. “Property is theft” he declared. Property to him was unearned (by Manual Labour) profit. He wanted workers to organise themselves into small autonomous groups Governing themselves.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) and the Origins of Scientific Socialism: Marx studied the Utopian Socialists but thought them naïve. He thought of Capitalism as no more than a stage in History. Ideas and institutions were opposing forces to the progression of world history. His theory that proletariat struggle against bourgeois was only the latest round in an on-going war. When the proletariat achieved power then socialism would prosper. The end of private property and pure communism would follow. This victory for proletariats would come in time. He argued that a workers Revolution would come if the proletariat organised themselves. “Workers unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

Europeans were impressed with the rapid pace of change. Trains brought places closer together. Cities grew and prospered and more and more people worked in industry while the upper classes were worried about urban chaos. The Industrial Revolution generated material progress, opulence abounded but so did wrenching poverty. The European powers (Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia) tried to restore old ways with new rules but Liberalism was for the rich at the cost of the growing poor. The year of reckoning came for the Conservatives in 1848.

Primary Source:

John Merriman

History Of Modern Europe.

Two Saint Patricks.

Will The Real St. Patrick Please Stand Up?

On analysis of the available evidence, surviving documentation and archaeological inscriptions, it can be seen that Ireland had two contemporaneous evangelists advocating Catholic philosophy but both coming from entirely different standpoints. Both missions were conducted in an apparently Christian conscious Ireland by the early 5th century CE. It is also clear that these missionaries proclaiming equal faith, first Palladius (as advocate of Pope Celestine), then Patrick (as advocate of God), had some impact on their own co-existing communities. With the rise of Catholic historical documentation, monastic propaganda reduced the efforts of Palladius’ ‘failed’ mission and, for no reason other than expediency, merged all credit for Christian conversion exclusively to Patrick, whose ‘successful’ mission was better serving the purposes of the advocations of Catholicism.

By the 5th century CE Pelagianism (and paganism) were proliferating in Western Europe and Ireland to such effect that Roman Catholicism, led by Pope Celestine I (Celestine the Deacon) (422-432 CE), himself a Roman and zealous for orthodoxy, sent Palladius as a Bishop to Ireland in 431. The chronicle of the contemporary St. Prosper of Aquitaine presents two important entries relating to Palladius. Under the date of 429 it has, “Agricola, a Pelagian, son of Severianus, a Pelagian bishop, corrupted the churches of Britain by the insinuation of his doctrine; but at the insistence of the Deacon Palladius (ad actionem Palladii Diaconi), Celestine sends Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre as his representative to root out heresy and direct the Britons to the Catholic Faith”. Again under the date of 431, in the consulship of Bassus and Antiocus: “Palladius was consecrated by Pope Celestine and sent to the Scots believing in Christ, as their first bishop” (Ad Scotum in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus episcopus mittitur).

It is clear then that by ordaining a bishop for the Irish (Scotis), whilst he laboured to keep the Roman Island (Britain) Catholic, he made also the barbarous Island (Ireland) Christian. The words of the second entry to the chronicle, “to the Scots believing in Christ” can only have the meaning that when the chronicle was being written in 447, the Irish had become a Christian people. Another relevant source to the authenticity of Palladius’ papal authority is The Seventh Century Life Of St. Patrick by Muircu Maccumachthenus in the “Book of Armagh” which expressly styles Palladius “Archidiaconus Papæ Coelestini urbis Romæ Episcopi”, repeated in several of the other lives of St. Patrick.

The conversion of Ireland was very significant to Celestine because, according to the writings of St Jerome (c.347-420), an Illyrian Christian priest and apologist , we suspect that Pelagius himself was of Goidelic-Celtic origin, q-Celt, (perhaps Irish), “He tells us that he was descended from the Scots (Irish) de vicinia Britannorum, and that he was “reared on Scotch porridge.” This simple fact feasibly meant that if Celestine could conquer the homeland of Pelagius, ‘the seat of his realm’, this may discredit his philosophy. Palladius soon abandoned the mission and was quickly replaced by an ostensibly self-appointed evangelist calling himself Bishop Patricius. In his ‘Confessio’ he elaborates in some detail as to the success of his mission (he attributes this success to God) when he writes, “’it is not you who speaks but the Spirit of your Father speaking in you.’ (Confessio Vs 20) This proved an ideal declaration of divine faith and his successful work was endorsed by his Roman contemporaries. The efforts of his predecessor, whose contribution to Irish Christianity was minimal, were inexplicably obliterated.

Christian inscriptions in Irish began about the middle of the 5th Century CE and are primarily located in the south-eastern side of the country. They show that Christian teaching must have been accepted among the native Irish, of this region, prior to the arrival of both missionaries. ‘The chiefs of the pre-Patrician saints include St. Ailbe in Co. Tipperary, St. Ibar of Wexford, St. Declan of Waterford, …..the controversy between Cashel, as the premier home of the Christian church and Armagh as the latter implies that it is possible two evangelists were at work in the country. Palladius to the South and Patrick to the North, “it is exactly the sort of controversy that was inevitable if these Southern Churches looked back to an independent origin and an earlier date than that of the apostle of Ireland, whose later glory had obscured their own”.

With St. Patrick came flourishing literacy and the subsequent documentation of reality, by his cohorts, was inexorably biased in favor of the message advocated their apostle. The primary strategy of Patrick was to introduce an episcopal church which indicates that he had some papal influences. In the ‘Catalogue Of The Order Of The Saints’ for the period 432-543 it is clearly stated that there were founders of churches who worshipped Christ and followed one leader, Patrick, and this clearly implies that in his lifetime he was undoubtedly held in high reverence by his contemporaries and immediate generations to follow. This loyalty manifested itself in propaganda that all but eliminated the presence and influence of Palladius. Interestingly, these passages also indicate that the Roman Church tradition was firmly in place, “one tonsure, one celebration of mass, one Easter” It is fair to conclude from this that Patrick’s mission had deep long lasting impact and was far more significant than that of Palladius.

While academics often give credit to both these men for the introduction of Christianity the more common view is that Patrick was indeed the true Apostle of Christ regardless of papal appointment or not. There is still good reason to debate the timeline of Palladius and Patrick, with ‘possibility’ being a significant part of the deliberations. By considering the surviving documentation, The Chronicles Of Prosper Of Aquitaine, The Annals Of The Irish Churches and Patrick’s own writings, it can be seen that the papal commission of Palladius coincided with the mission of Patrick though only the latter reaps commendation.

To track the short timeline of Palladius’ mission we turn to the ‘Chronicles of Prosper of Aquitaine’, “Ad Scottos in Christum credentes ordinatus a papa Caelestina Palladius primus episcopus mittitur”, Palladius was sent to Ireland by Pope Celestine as the first bishop to the Irish who believe in Christ in 431 AD. In 434 Prosper again wrote regarding Palladius, that Pope Celestine ‘having ordained a bishop for the Irish, while he labours to keep the Roman island [Britain] Catholic, has also made the barbarian island [Ireland] Christian’ in his Contra Collatorem. These two passages place Palladius in Ireland evangelising to the Irish from 431 onwards. In Ireland, church Annals record Palladius’ arrival. The Annals of Ulster show Palladius, having been approved by Pope Celestine, is sent to Ireland in the consulship of Aetius and Valerius in 431 while the Annals of the Four Masters say that Palladius landed in the county of Leinster in 430. With these pieces of evidence added to the writings of Prosper it verifies that Palladius was in Ireland fulfilling his papal commission in the early 430’s.

In order to establish Saint Patrick’s time in Ireland, the surviving sources are principally recorded internally by the Irish church Annals. The Annals of the Four Masters also go on to record that Patrick arrived in 432 and proceeded to baptize and bless the Irish. The Annals of Ulster confirm that Patrick reached Ireland in 432 the ninth year of the reign of Theodosius Mino. These church writings firmly place Patrick arriving in Ireland and converting the people at the same time as Palladius.

To corroborate this we can garner some facts from Patrick’s own writings in his Letter to Coroticus demanding the release of enslaved, by Tyrannus, Irish Christians and his later life biographical Confessio both of which survive in the Book Of Armagh.

According to RPC Hanson, there are two men who could have gone by the name Tyrannus, the son of a man called Cuned from North Wales who had a child possibly named Coroticus or the King of Dumbarton on the coast of Scotland. Either of these still place Patrick in Ireland writing this communication in the first half of the fifth century. In his Epistola, Patrick mentioned “…with many thousand solidi, to redeem baptized captives…” This solidi was a gold coin reintroduced by Constantine the Great in 312 and remained in circulation throughout the supremacy of the Roman Empire. The fact is that the coins were last minted in 411 so circulation had diminished. The further into the fifth century, the less likely it is that Patrick would refer to the coin in his letter. Passages of Saint Patrick Confessio have an eschatological tone and it is obvious from this that his mission was based around the fall of Rome which occurred in 410. R.P.C. Hanson states that this tone places Patrick in Ireland in the early half of the fifth century. The information gathered from the surviving evidence of the Confession of Saint Patrick and his Letter to Coroticus points to him writing these letters from Ireland in the first half of the fifth century. The same time that Palladius was converting the Irish to Christianity.

Palladius mission in Ireland is clearly recorded internally by the Annals of the Irish churches and externally by the chronicles of Prosper of Aquitaine. These sources place Palladius converting the Irish to Christianity from 431 onwards. There is reliance on deductive reasoning in determining a timeframe for Patrick’s mission based on his own writings. The answers gathered from those deductions point to the first half of the fifth century and corroborate Patrick’s mission with the recorded dates of the Annals of the Four Masters and the Annals of Ulster. By not getting immersed in the theories of Patrician scholars and remaining within the confinement of surviving evidence, it is provable that the mission of Palladius to convert the Irish to Christianity must have been at the same period of time as that of Saint Patrick.

With Thanks To:

Dr. Liam Irwin.

What Is Oral History?

Oral history is an method of collecting personal testimony. It is a way of documenting life stories and experiences of interviewees from all walks of life who have something of interest to say about themselves, their lives or events they may have witnessed.

When it comes to documenting oral history it requires advanced preparation, we need to understand the complexity of interview relationships, the questioning and listening skills and, as important, the ability to understand oral evidence and uses in a wide variety of settings.

Oral history is not folklore, but it is the tradition of beliefs, customs and stories of the community passed through the generations by word-of-mouth. Until the arrival of the oral historian the transmission of oral history was captured by the pen. However, with the arrival of recording devices we can now document history using personal testimony and first-hand information.

Oral history can be best described as a way of revealing a hidden history; it documents history as seen from “below” meaning from the ordinary individual, as opposed to from above or, as is normally the case, from the people who make history and not from the people who witnesses at a common level. From this point of view oral history has become a valuable resource in many communities that use it to record the memories of their senior members. These recordings can be archived for future reference, and this gives a new dimension to the way we understand history. It is furthermore a democratisation of history as it allows Us, due to new technologies, to record the memoirs of all people. It empowers to historian and the ordinary person in making new information in relation to historical events available to a wider audience. But perhaps one of its greatest uses is that it now balances documentary sources.

When we look at documentary sources such as books, documents, newspapers and periodicals, we must ask, what are they, how useful are they and are they 100% reliable. Are they biased or unbiased or are they just one person’s point of view? When it comes to oral history, we can use it to back up such documentation and the recordings become a second resource. Documents can be partisan or biased, but, from a positive point of view they can also be contemporaneous.

Personal testimony is very unique. As we listen to the person speak, we get an accurate account of their perception of their own lives and the events therein. However, we must also take into consideration such memories are normally retrospective and as such, because of the passing of time, they may be somewhat colored or the speaker may have issues of memory.

Personal narratives differ in the way they are written or spoken. In an interview situation (an exchange) the interviewee is relying totally on their own memory of a given situation. However, from recordings we can also tell certain things from the atmosphere created, the accent, the information, the stories offered. There would also tell us something about the generational bridges which have been crossed.

It is important to remember that an interview is not an interrogation, and the interviewer should always have brief notes which he or she can follow throughout the course of the interview. The interview itself should be conversational, not just a conversation and the interviewee should never be made to feel that he or she is an outsider, but an insider.

Oral history began its life in the early 1940s in the USA. With the publication of the book; Gateway to History (1938) came the first real oral history textbook documenting what has been described as the stories of; “living Americans who have led significant lives’. United States Federal Writers Project in the 1930s and 1940s, also helped with the advancement of the discipline. Recorded interviews with victims of the Great Depression have given great depth to our understanding of history in this era. By the 1960s with issues such as Black rights and women’s rights oral historians have documented substantial information through the recording of living witnesses.

In Britain, Organizations Such As the British Library Sound Archive 1936, School Of Scottish Studies 1950s, Labour and Local History Late 1960s, Oral History Society 1973, Oral History Journal (collection, reservation and use of recorded memories of the past.) Have all contributed to the advancement of the discipline. Publications such as; Evans, Ask The Fellow Who Cut The Hay (1975), Paul Thompson, The Voice Of The Past (1978) And Alastair Thompson, Anzac Memories (1994), Moving Stories (2010) are all now deemed standard textbooks in Oral History.

In Ireland, Musgrave, Memoirs of the Different Rebellions (1802), Luke Cullen 1830s, Irish Folklore Commission 1937-38 (documenting such issues as patriotism, ruralism, and famine) are all substantial works.

Also in Ireland there are a number of organisations now focused on Oral History recording, compiling and archiving. These include; Irish Folklore Department Archive UCD, Irish Oral History Archive, Cork Northside Project MIC Oral History Archive, Boston College (Dublin) GAA Oral History, Oral History Network of Ireland and MIC Oral History Centre.