Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T07:34:08.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

‘THE CRUELL PRESSURE OF AN ENRAGED, BARBAROUS PEOPLE’: IRISH AND ENGLISH IDENTITY IN SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY POLICY AND PROPAGANDA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 1998

KATHLEEN M. NOONAN
Affiliation:
Mills College, Oakland, California

Abstract

Seventeenth-century English men and women, caught in the upheaval of the Civil War, sought to understand what it was to be English and sought to grasp England's proper role in the world. One of the ways in which they did this was through their encounters with other people. The Irish had a long history of interaction with the English, but in the middle of the seventeenth century their role in defining Englishness became acute. Late Tudor and early Jacobean commentaries on Ireland had stressed the superiority of English culture while acknowledging some virtues of Ireland and its people that would make it amenable to beneficial transformation by the English. In the middle of the century, occasioned by the events of the 1641 uprising, this ameliorative view of the Irish gave way to the view that English and Irish were incompatible. Earlier studies have emphasized the role of religion in the discordant relationship between the two peoples in the seventeenth century. This essay maintains that the shift in attitude had as much to do with ethnicity as it did with religion and considers the central role of John Temple and his treatise The Irish rebellion in changing English attitudes on both a national and local level. The study suggests that Temple's view became the dominant one for more than 200 years because of the demographic changes within the Irish community in London and puritan concerns about a godly community that occurred at the time Temple set forth his ideas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1998 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A number of people have read this article in various stages of its development and have offered helpful criticism and suggestions. I would like to thank Sears McGee, John Morrill, John Stoner, Helena Wall, Paul Seaver, Barbara Donagan, and Madeleine Kahn. For a rare opportunity to discuss ideas in depth with colleagues I wish to thank the National Endowment for the Humanities and the members of the NEH seminar held at the Claremont Graduate School in the summer of 1993, particularly David Cressy.