Cultural Hybridity, Discordant Relationships, and Critical Perspectives

Abstract

David Clare’s first monograph, Bernard Shaw’s Irish Outlook, broke ground in terms of analyzing the influence of Ireland and Irishness on Bernard Shaw’s plays. A significant part of this analysis locates the importance of Shaw’s Anglo-Irish, Protestant upbringing as part of how Shaw perceives the island of his youth. Clare’s most recent study, Irish Anglican Literature and Drama: Hybridity and Discord, engages a new lens on Anglo-Irish literature that supports Michael Brown, Jarlath Killeen, and Michael Griffin’s (among others) use of a different appellation, the titular “Irish Anglican.” The lean text includes global analyses of authors varying from those receiving critical reappraisals to those who have been regrettably underresearched: Elizabeth Griffith, Erskine Childers, Dion Boucicault, Bram Stoker, Charlotte Brooke, Maria Edgeworth, Sydney Owenson, Mary Balfour, Lady Gregory, C. S. Lewis (whom Clare argues is influenced by W. B. Yeats, other Irish Modernists, and, significantly for SHAW readers, Shaw himself), and Leland Bardwell. Clare’s objective in writing this text is, he states, to compile research in the form of case studies that, taken together, point to the cultural hybridity of Irish Anglican writers: strongly Irish, occasionally English, and complicatedly British in their views of Britain and its interests in Ireland. As such, from the introductory first chapter through the sixth chapter’s conclusion, Clare shapes his research into a readable, approachable format and length that does not skimp on thorough details, and that will especially appeal to Shavians.In this book, part of the Palgrave Pivot series, Clare takes full advantage of this opportunity to craft and share his ongoing research, bridging the gap between Bernard Shaw’s Irish Outlook and his broader focus on Irish writers and hybrid identities. The Palgrave Pivot series is designed to showcase research at its “natural” length, beyond the constraints of a journal article, but slightly shorter than a traditional monograph. Clare covers a remarkable amount of ground in his survey, which never reads as choppy. In this case, it is evident that Clare’s expertise in the area of Irish Anglican, or Anglo-Irish as they are commonly referred to, writers is already well established, and this is on full display through his lucid, assertive prose. To this end, Clare devotes long-overdue attention to Irish women writers, rightfully highlighting those who have received a certain degree of critical attention (Bowen, Gregory, Edgeworth) and those who have been relegated to second-tier status (Elizabeth Griffith, Leland Bardwell).Each chapter approaches the questions of hybridity and identity in Irish Anglican literary works via textual and literary historical analyses, and primary source research. While the aforementioned methods figure into each chapter, their internal structures vary, providing readers with dynamic content in terms of how Clare frames themes and authorship. While the introductory chapter, “Middle Nation?,” serves to establish the central arguments—namely, the resultant discord in oversimplifying and pigeonholing both the Protestantism and the social class of Irish Anglicans—the second chapter on Elizabeth Griffith mainly probes selections from her body of work in an effort to ensure that more women writers be included among the ranks of Irish Anglicans who relocated to London and wrote English-set plays. The next three chapters, “The Portraits of the English in the Work of Dion Boucicault, Bram Stoker, and Erskine Childers,” “Charlotte Brooke’s Impact on Ascendancy Women Writers from Maria Edgeworth to Lady Gregory,” and “C. S. Lewis and the Irish Literary Canon,” focus more on relationships, influences, and interconnections, weaving together authorship and textual analysis. The final chapter concludes with an analysis focused on the intersections of religious affiliations and class in Leland Bardwell’s Girl on a Bicycle before opening up into a greater discussion of the “Britishness” that Bardwell describes, and the “Englishness” often carelessly attributed to people of Irish Anglican backgrounds. The compact nature of this work is suitable for scholars and readers who already have a basis in Irish studies, specifically those whose work concerns the Irish literary canon, the tradition of Anglo-Irish writers in relation to the canon, Irish identities, and Irish women writers.The text’s compact length is a double-edged sword, of course, as Clare’s research consistently elevates scholarship in the area of Anglo-Irish writing to new heights. Provocative arguments and assertions that push these very limits do not have the space to be fully developed and exhausted, instead leaving the reader wanting more, perhaps in an attempt to encourage new scholarship with regard to the Irish diaspora and the “New Irish” writers and artists. Regardless, this does not take away from the quality of Clare’s work here and is mostly due to the aforementioned constraints of the series. Nevertheless, the arguments presented therein will pique the interests of the readers to the degree to which it will be interesting to see where Clare picks up after this introductory reappraisal of names both familiar and less so to scholars of the Irish literary canon.Clare further breaks down and parses the Anglo-Irish element, but this time across a variety of Irish authors who fall into this category, whether neatly or otherwise. But this is not simply an accounting of religious demographics; indeed, Clare goes to great pains in his introduction to define the terms in question succinctly and clearly, while cautioning readers about the inherent challenges using religiously loaded terms. In fact, “Anglo-Irish” is discarded in favor of “Irish Anglican” due to blanket associations with Big House writers. All of this further supports Clare’s contention that those persons writing from the Irish Anglican tradition maintained relationships with both islands that were far more complex than is often explored in scholarship. The introductory chapter takes care to establish the framework whereby readers will go from groundwork to contemporary debates regarding the “New Irish” and the Irish diaspora. As Clare states in this chapter, his objective is to provide not a general accounting of Irish Protestants but instead an appraisal, including major works, of “Irish people of at least partial British descent raised in the (Anglican) Church of Ireland” (4). The “discord” that results from their cultural hybridity is not squarely negative, but exceptionally nuanced—a sentiment that Shavians can more than appreciate.As Clare effectively “tilts the lens” to evaluate Irish Anglican writers, he elaborates a more solid foundation from which to emphasize Shaw’s role in the Irish literary canon. In this case, Clare gives more evidence for the definitive inclusion of Erskine Childers and C. S. Lewis, writers whose work, like that of Shaw, is rarely ever considered in Irish studies (11). While Bernard Shaw is not, unlike in Clare’s first monograph, the primary focus of this work, Shavians will be delighted and intrigued to find a strong Shaw presence throughout the text. Clare’s familiarity with the playwright helps the author to integrate his plays and criticism throughout the book. While Shaw figures explicitly in Clare’s fifth chapter “C. S. Lewis and the Irish Literary Canon,” Shaw’s presence crops up throughout nearly all of the other chapters. Clare also uses Shaw’s Irish Anglican heritage to expand upon the notion of hybridity that he develops over the course of this text—namely, the importance of precision in vocabulary usage as it denotes nationality or ethnicity. “Irish” and “British,” yes, but rarely, if ever, simply “English” with regard to the writers described here (7). Shaw’s English-set, (subtly) Irish-themed dramas become the means by which other playwrights, such as Elizabeth Griffiths, might be figured into the same tradition wherein the writer’s identity, territorialization, and the plot of the plays issue precise critiques of their adopted country (26).What makes Clare’s text truly interesting concerning identity and hybridity is the way in which Clare draws attention to how these two notions influence the style of writing of the selected authors. Issues of race, class, and religious affiliation are woven seamlessly into textual analyses, whereby Clare argues that certain aspects of a globally Irish identity manifest in the way that authors such as C. S. Lewis write and compose literature. Irish identity and details for the plays—place names that “double” for Ireland and England, such as Ranelagh—work on two levels whereby Irish audience members can pick up on the double meanings that would elude English spectators. Shaw’s penchant for including references to Ireland in his work becomes the means by which Clare can analyze how such considerations function in Elizabeth Griffith’s work (31). Clare further grounds writers like Griffith in Shaw’s line of playwrights by highlighting her use of proper names that not only symbolize the imperial center but also criticize the “distinctly English nature” of materialism and corruption—and bland food. Griffith uses the character “Sam Bull” to caricaturize England almost a century before Shaw’s John Bull’s Other Island (37).The influence of Shaw as Irish Anglican proves useful as a point of contrast too: Clare uses Shaw’s “subversive, pro-Irish, anti-English” (not necessarily “British” but “English”) agenda as a way to juxtapose other playwrights and authors that Clare argues are, in the end, flatterers of the English rather than critics. In his third chapter, “The Portraits of the English in the Work of Dion Boucicault, Bram Stoker, and Erskine Childers,” Clare devotes in-depth textual analyses of certain works from these authors to contrast with those who, like Shaw, proffered serious critiques of the English. For each of these authors, Clare contrasts their personal leanings with the English characters in their works, arguing that this reflects their Irish/British hybridity. The complexity of Clare’s argument—commercial sensibilities running up against hybrid identities—is refreshing in its refusal to compartmentalize these authors or offer monolithic assessments of Anglo-Irish writers.Perhaps the most significant instance of Shavian commentary in Clare’s text appears in the fifth chapter on “C. S. Lewis and the Irish Literary Canon.” This individual section traces the influence of Shaw in the work of the Belfast-born Lewis. Clare includes a staggering amount of research in this relatively brief section—everything from commentary by Lewis on Shaw’s body of work to comparative analyses of plays and poetry (in the case of Lewis). The origins of Shaw’s influence on Lewis—his Cork-born father—and the “love/hate” relationship with Shaw’s politics and the notion of the “Life Force” set the stage for a discussion in which criticism and textual analyses intersect. Clare reveals that even in areas where Lewis took Shaw to task over ideological differences, Shaw’s sway over the manner in which Lewis composed his work still shines through. In particular, there is the latter’s humor and “ruthless scrutiny” of the world around him as being indebted to Shaw as well as being uniquely Irish (99). Clare argues further, through examples culled from Lewis and Shaw’s writing, that the content of the former’s works was very much taken from the latter, provocatively noting that it was “almost always without citing the source” (99). The examples that Clare cites, such as from John Bull’s Other Island, definitely give cause for pause, but leave the reader all the more curious due to the relative brevity with which they are presented (100). From the manner of writing to the contents thereof, Clare extends his discussion to include evidence from correspondence as to what Lewis was able to learn from Shaw’s writing, including a quasi-uncredited reference to The Doctor’s Dilemma and shared disagreement over the vivisection of animals (Clare points out that Lewis credits Shaw not in the essay itself, but rather in a letter written after the fact; 102). Curiously, there is a final assertion that criticism issued by Lewis of Shaw comes down to insecurity over Shaw’s theorization of the Life Force, and that this can be chalked up to “anxiety of influence”—this is certainly a provocative end to an intellectually engaging section, but due to its relative brevity in an already thought-provoking work overall, the reader is left wanting more (103).Overall, Clare’s newest work will find a home with scholars of Irish studies and Shavians and in the places where these two groups intersect and overlap. For scholars of Shaw in particular, the connections that Clare makes with other Irish writers, whether referred to as Anglo-Irish or Irish Anglican, further supports the necessity of foregrounding Shaw’s work as part of the Irish literary canon, as well as that of the other writers that Clare cites. It also invites more in-depth comparative studies from historical and literary perspectives. The breadth and amount of research contained within the relatively short 153 pages mean that scholars rather than casual readers will find this to be the most appealing. This is not in any way a mark against the work as a whole, but merely an observation that the text expects a level of familiarity with the Irish literary canon and Anglo-Irish writers that newcomers to the field may find slightly daunting. In the end, however, it is Clare’s research and cogent writing style that shine through, further solidifying this work as an important contribution to the ongoing scholarship concerning the necessary inclusion of Anglo-Irish writers in the canon, largely thanks to the “strength of the Irish identities of these same writers” (135).