When reading articles about the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising in Dublin, one encounters the word ‘myth’ sooner or later. Repeatedly, it is mentioned how mythicized Ireland’s past is. How is this possible? How is it acceptable to call a historical event that happened only one hundred years ago a myth? Is its existence in question? Why is it treated like a legend?
The Easter Rising of 1916 was a rebellion planned in secret by the military council of the Irish Volunteers and the Irish Citizen Army. The rebels seized Dublin’s city centre, declared an Irish Republic and managed to defend their position for nearly one week until they ultimately surrendered to the forces of the British army which were superior in number. The rebels’ names – Pádraic Pearse, Tom Clarke, Séan MacDiarmada, Joseph Plunkett among others – became the names of Irish national heroes though in the initial reaction of the Irish public this did not seem likely. When the rebel leaders were escorted into captivity, the public loathed them – for the destruction of the city, the unnecessary rebellion during the Great War and the threat they posed to Home Rule.
However, the rebels and revolutionaries cursed by their contemporaries became national heroes over time. The unwelcome rebellion today is considered a foundational event or a national myth of the Irish Republic. How did this change come to pass? How does an event become a myth during the lifespan of those who lived through it? Why does this version of the narrative seem to be the commonly accepted one?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theory of Myth
2.1. Definition
2.2. Functions and Characteristics of Myth
3. The Easter Rising as a Myth
3.1. Mythmaking by Pádraic Pearse
3.2. Staging of the Rising
3.3. The Myth of Blood-Sacrifice
4. Conclusion
5. Sources
Objectives and Topics
This essay explores how the Easter Rising of 1916 transformed from an initially unpopular rebellion into a foundational national myth of the Irish Republic. It examines the process of mythologization, focusing on how narrative, symbolism, and the strategic construction of identity shaped public perception over time.
- The definition and cultural significance of 'myth' in historical contexts.
- The role of Pádraic Pearse in crafting and performing the rebellion's narrative.
- The use of theatricality and visual symbolism in staging the Rising.
- The influence of the 'myth of blood-sacrifice' as a tool for political and social unification.
- The transition from contemporary rejection to historical national canonization.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2. Staging of the Rising
Many scholars of the Rising have emphasised its importance as a gesture, not as a military action. In terms of strategy, the Rising was meant to fail in its planning: the plan was to hold Dublin city centre for as long as possible, nothing more. There could be no victory in the sense of a military success. It was more of a gesture, “an armed demonstration to show that separatists were serious” (DORNEY 99) that became an “opening volley of a largely successful Irish revolution” (BEINER 378).
An example of the mythmaking in the staging of the Rising is the appearance of the revolutionaries. Both Irish National Volunteers and Irish Citizen Army wore uniforms, though partly homemade and slightly different; they tried to convey the image of the rebels as a disciplined army (DORNEY 123) and furthermore constructed something that had not been there before: an Irish military identity. Generally, uniforms imply discipline, hierarchy and they legitimise violence (TYNAN 28). In the case of the Easter Rising, this legitimisation was needed by the rebels whose secret conspiracy desperately tried to represent the nation. Most popularly, Pádraic Pearse wore this uniform while reading out the Proclamation of the Republic in front of the GPO. In this way, the rebellion and the respectable military image were connected to the myth they created: the unjust treatment of Ireland, the right to fight for Ireland’s freedom and the creation of a national identity.
Apart from being called a gesture, the term ‘theatre’ is also applied to the Easter Rising by some scholars. The Rising is described as “a theatre where the fourth wall has been removed; here, the audience partakes fully of the action with tragic consequences” (MYLES 39) or as “theatre […], not really a war at all. It was a symbolic statement written in blood” (TOBIN 108). Even in surrendering, the rebel leaders – and mostly the writers among them – put all their energy in the “creation of a heroic foundation myth” (TOBIN 116).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the historical context of the Easter Rising and defines the objective of analyzing the event as a modern national myth.
2. Theory of Myth: Establishes a theoretical framework for understanding myth as an influential narrative that shapes social reality and collective identity.
3. The Easter Rising as a Myth: Investigates the practical application of myth-making through the actions of Pádraic Pearse, the theatrical staging of the rebellion, and the potent narrative of blood-sacrifice.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, arguing that the Rising's status as a foundational event is a result of effective, long-term mythologization rather than initial military success.
5. Sources: Provides a comprehensive bibliography of the academic works referenced throughout the study.
Keywords
Easter Rising, Pádraic Pearse, Mythmaking, Irish Republic, Blood-Sacrifice, Cultural Studies, Narrative, Nationalism, Collective Identity, Symbolism, Foundation Myth, Historical Memory, Rebellion, Martyrdom.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this research?
The research focuses on the Easter Rising of 1916 and the process through which this event became a foundational national myth for the Irish Republic.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The central themes include the mechanics of myth-making, the use of symbols and narrative in politics, the concept of sacrifice, and the evolution of historical memory within a nation.
What is the core research question?
The essay explores how an event that was initially rejected by the public during the time it occurred could transform into a universally accepted national myth within the same generation.
Which scientific approach is utilized?
The paper uses a cultural studies approach, applying theoretical concepts of myth, narrative, and 'emplotment' to historical events to analyze how meaning is constructed and reconstructed.
What is examined in the main section of the paper?
The main section covers three critical factors: the charismatic myth-making role of Pádraic Pearse, the 'theatrical' and symbolic staging of the rebellion, and the powerful 'myth of blood-sacrifice'.
Which terms best characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as historical myth, national identity, sacrificial narrative, commemorative culture, and political symbolism.
How does the author define the relationship between the Easter Rising and the 'myth of blood-sacrifice'?
The author argues that the 'myth of blood-sacrifice' served as the most powerful tool for the rebels to justify the rebellion and reconcile their defeat, effectively framing their deaths as a redemptive act similar to the Christian story.
What role does Pádraic Pearse play in the myth-making process?
Pearse is depicted as the 'face and voice' of the rebellion who strategically used his background as a poet and activist to 'emplot' himself and his comrades as martyrs, thereby controlling the narrative of the Rising.
Did the Irish public support the Rising when it first occurred?
No, the initial public reaction was one of annoyance and loathing, as the public blamed the rebels for the destruction of the city and the threat to Home Rule during the Great War.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Almut Amberg (Autor:in), 2016, From Unwanted Rebellion to National Founding Myth. How the Easter Rising of 1916 became a Myth, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/954651
