A bit of Lee-way
Sir: Joseph Lee's review of Edward Norman's A History of Modern Ireland (June 19) was amusing. It also contained the following misrepresentations: 1) Lee wittily recommends the book to students of anatomy on the grounds that Dr Norman "adds a new dimension to historical studies by probing into the physical deformities of Irish public figures." There is no such probing. Norman devotes no more than a paragraph to what he calls the " curious " fact that many of the leaders of the Young Irelanders suffered from exceptionally poor health. He comments that "these were a strange group. of men to find glorying in the military Virtues of the Irish race, and inciting to physical force as the only way to get their ideas advanced." That is all. The comment is not obviously absurd, and speculation about physical peculiarities plays no part whatever in Norman's argument. Other references to the health of Irish politicians total about six lines in a book of three hundred pages.
2) Lee says that Norman "applies the term fascism ' with all the discrimination of a marcher on Grosvenor Square." This is grotesque. In one passage, indeed, Norman refers to the "nascent fascism" in the nationalism of such men as George Russell, D. P. Moran and Patrick Pearse. He supports the remark — which is restrained enough anyway — with quotations from all three of them, of which the following from Pearse can serve as a example: "—bloodshed is a cleansing and a sanctifying thing, and the nation which regards it as the final horror has lost its manhood." Norman's judgement seems apt enough. There are only two other references to Fascism in the entire book. One is in the context of the Blue-shirts (" who announced the futility of party-politics and described a future nation-state of military dictatorship and dead Jews "). The other is where Norman remarks that Northern Ireland developed "not intro a species of fascism, but into a liberal democracy with an advanced level of public welfare."
3) Lee says that Norman describes the Tipperary voters who elected O'Donovan Rossa as "ruffians." He does not. He mentioned Lord Kimberley as remarking "just what might be expected from the ruffians who inhabit the county."
These misrepresentations are, of course, only marginal to Lee's argument, but they do not convey an impression of that .emotional detachment which he accuses Dr Norman of lacking.
John Casey Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
Previous page
