University Patriotism

WHEN the historic fight for Compulsory Irish was raging most fiercely, a demonstration in favour of the popular demand was organised by the students of Dublin. They responded nobly and enthusiastically. A meeting was held in the Mansion House, and one speaker, rising to a dizzy height of denunciation, asserted that any Irishman, who turned his back on the national language of his country, was not fit to be hanged on her trees, drowned in her rivers, or buried in her soil. He uttered a simple if a terrible truth, which his audience appeared to admit.

They rose to him like one man, endorsed his utterance with cheers, and afterwards, in a frenzy of enthusiasm, seized torches and paraded their faith in the streets. It was a great and triumphant night, and one, the utility of which for the immediate purpose in view, the Gaelic League is still prepared gratefully to acknowledge. Everyone thought that here was lofty inspiration sufficient to satisfy the most cautious. That demonstration meant, if it meant anything, that the student bodies of the Capital were deeply impressed by the truth of the ideal of an Irish-speaking Ireland, and more than this, that they held themselves ready, nay, bound in honour, to co-operate in forwarding that ideal.

The hypothesis is, however, important, because the demonstration meant nothing. It was an outburst similar to that which we witness regularly on Trinity Monday, only infinitely more dignified. That is to say, it was merely an ebullition of those ardent, irrepressible spirits, which seem inseparable from University students acting corporately. Those taking part in it did not mean either to undertake any responsibilities, or to assume any duties involving trouble.

In justice to their self-respect, let me as that a small minority undoubtedly did feel in their consciences that their acts and words demanded some "follow on". They devoted a few months to the study of the language, but it was too much like work, and they gave up after a brief trial. The romantic glimmer of the torches having faded and died. The whole artificial enthusiasm crumbled away and no permanent result remained. We know now that our students, on that night, professed a faith that was not in them, and swore that which was not true.

How do we know ? I could enumerate, from my own experience, numberless facts showing this, but I prefer to rely on the article of your recent contributor, " Student." He accurately summarises the position today, six years after the events, which I have just recalled. He tells us that what the language has gained in security in University College, Dublin, it has lost in favour. What an anomalous picture is here held up! One generation of students protests that they will be satisfied with nothing but Essential Irish. The next groans and sweats under its intolerable tyranny. " Student " further says: " Ask any student what he thinks of the Gaelic League; two out of three will tell you that there is no hope of reviving the language." He says truly here, save that I think he places the number of optimists at too large a figure.

Again, he tells us that the University student will not come into the League because " it has stopped growing." Now, if the League retorts that growth is obviously arrested because, amongst other reasons, the student will not come in, what becomes of the argument. And this answer covers more than mere numerical growth. Again, he informs us that it is only the abnormally patriotic in the College, who can contemplate and work for the cause of an Ireland speaking her native language.

What a cruel admission, what a trenchant criticism!

Finally we are told by " Student " that the Gaelic League may not hope to make any headway in University College until it (i.e., the League) receives a " fresh inspiration." I must confess that this statement is completely bewildering and perfectly baffling. Are we to understand that every particle of the Mansion House inspiration is dissipated. In any case is the country to take it that university students are unable to derive inspiration from the simple thought that a man of one race and nation, upon whose tongue is the language of another race, to the exclusion of that of his own, and who, knowing this deliberately acquiesces, can never hope to be a freeman ?

Why this thought has lashed the pride of thousands of humble tradesmen and clerks, has infused into them the grit and pertinacity to struggle against intellectual difficulties that the highly trained student (with whom studying is his métier) cannot appreciate; and so to win back their self-respect. The League owes its irresistible strength to the simplicity and irrefragable truth of that idea. It has no inspiration save this, no philosophy but a deep abiding and intense conviction that to allow placidly the enemy to conquer the soul of Ireland, and to prescribe the medium of expression, is to offer no resistance to nine parts out of ten of that final conquest so relentlessly sought.

What inspiration do our students want ? Observation shows it to be of a peculiar and ephemeral character. It would seem that they are incapable of receiving inspiration save in the moments of the greatest national emotion. It requires the application of the most intense heat to infuse any warmth into the student body, which seems to be an exception to the physical law, which ordains that bodies receiving heat with difficulty retain it for a long time.

Indeed " Student " takes no trouble to conceal his view of these facts. Varying the metaphor, he says: "Irish nationality manifests itself in new forms at constantly recurring intervals; it swells up like the flood of a great river, and then subsides, and there is a season of drought until the flood comes once more." And, again, in apology, or, at any rate, in explanation of the inaction of his fellow-students " We have come at a time when the flood-tide of the Gaelic League has ebbed.

Look at the recent history of the College. In the great Home Rule demonstration held in O'Connell Street, the students sailed in on the crest of a wave. They solely occupied a platform at that great meeting and held it with great credit. They support the Volunteer movement because it, too, is big ; and they insist on a separate company recruited solely from Dublin students. A little reflection will recall the fact thut their support was given to our League six Years ago, only when we had roused the nation to a state of tremendous enthusiasm for the cause of Essential Irish. On that occasion, too, they insisted on a separate demonstration by their body, and, once again, sustained it with great éclat.

Now what evidence of inspiration is contained in these facts? Do they not mean that the students in our national university will not, or are incapable of, moving until the nation has led the way ? Do they also mean that student nature insists on coming in at half-past the eleventh hour, and on occupying a prominent position in the picture ; reaping where others have sown ; deriving advertisement where others have toiled and brought about results?

Is " inspiration " identical with the provision of a platform for students? Why do they invariably demand the crest of a big wave ? Why is the student not equally prominent at the necessary periods of the ebb-tides? Indeed, is it not entirely compatible with the qualities attributable to student nature to expect them to plunge into the outgoing flood and battle strongly against it ? If there be decay in the language movement why are they not beside their humbler and more democratic countrymen endeavouring to stem it. Are they false friends who come only in the times of prosperity?

As things are their actions constitute a make-believe which deceives; and their fitful outbursts of energy, resulting in no permanent movement, serve only to create a false atmosphere, and so to foster illusory hopes. It is a sad thought that the premier educational establishment of national Ireland should be of such negligible importance in a movement like the Gaelic League. The purpose of this movement is so prominently an educational one, that the country naturally expects that the experts in education would be " all over it ".

More especially is this so when it is recalled that patriotism of a pure and disinterested kind makes up the complement. That the conscience of the College is uneasy is apparent from the advice which the League is continually receiving. One student suggests that we must make all culture our domain, and that then all will be well. Anther member of the College suggests that our summer-schools should encourage Volunteers to come around them, and do some singing and dancing, while keeping off any serious study of the language.

" Student " suggests "inspiration." The variety of the nostrums is innumerable. Each man has his own. There is, however,  only one real one, viz., that each individual should candidly recognise his duty, and then do it. This duty has two parts, a personal and a public. The personal duty is to acquire a speaking mastery of the language. The public one is to come into the movement and help in its organisation, work on its committees, and speak on its platforms.

I would venture, in conclusion, in, to suggest to the worthy President, who is personally a competent Irish scholar, that, as he is a trustee for the nation, it would be well to demonstrate the institution, committed to his guidance, for the benefit of the language, as he has already done for the cause of politics, and to do it with all the corporate dignity that the College can muster. Otherwise lie risks establishing a tradition in the College whereby Patriotism is narrowed to Politics, and Nationality is confounded with Nationalism.

U.C.D.