ࡱ> { bjbjzz Hh 8Hl,jdt(RRRccccccc$ehdRRd4$dAAANcAcAA] UbZE;>@_:c:d0jd_z4j{>4jtUb4jUbRhALTMRRRdd @RRRjd4jRRRRRRRRR : Bonn Dh Insint ar Gach Scal: Re-reading Beatha Pheig Sayers John Eastlake Peig Sayers of the Great Blasket Island, famous throughout Europe for her storytelling in the Irish language, also produced three published autobiographies: Peig: a Scal Fin, Machnamh Seanmhn, and Beatha Pheig Sayers. All three were the result of a collaborative process of production involving multiple individuals. As working documents are not extant, the published texts themselves serve as a record of the collaborations that produced them. It is important that all three texts be read together to provide perspective on that process of collaboration. In particular, Beatha Pheig Sayers has not been read as an integral part of Sayers literary production. This article argues that Beatha Pheig Sayers contains a crucial retelling of the story of Sayers arranged marriage that is essential to understanding her discourses about marriage in all three published autobiographies. As such, Beatha Pheig Sayers has a great deal to contribute to our understanding of Peig Sayers and her published autobiographies. Introduction The emergence of autobiography as a prolific genre in Irish-language literature was largely a result of the Gaelic revival of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, during which revivalists sought to draw the highly valued Native speaker of Irish into the production of literature. Visitors to the Gaeltacht, or Irish-speaking areas of Ireland, encouraged members of Irish-speaking communities to relate their own life stories either in writing or by dictation, as it was felt that autobiography was perhaps a less-challenging genre for those who were presumed to be largely unfamiliar with written literary conventions. From the early years of the twentieth century, various visitors to the Great Blasket Island off the west coast of Co. Kerry, including writers, language activists, and European scholars, stimulated and encouraged the production of texts, particularly life-stories. The first autobiography to be published was An tOilenach (1929) by Toms ӠCriomhthain, a Blasket Island fisherman, who received encouragement from and collaborated with a variety of individuals.1 As Mirn Nic Eoin (2007: 132) has explained: [This book] is the most significant work of autobiography to have been written in Irish and was a milestone in the emergence of twentieth century Gaeltacht literature in general. The critical and commercial success of An tOilenach opened the gates for the publication of many other Gaeltacht autobiographies, which were often the product of a collaboration between a member of one of Irelands Irish-speaking communities and an outsider interested in the Irish language or Irish-language culture. From the Blaskets came two more prominent texts, Fiche Blian ag Fs (1933) by Muiris Silleabhin, and Peig, a Scal Fin (1936) by Peig Sayers, referred to as Peig henceforth.2 These texts were followed by a wave of publications in the 1940s and 1950s from several of the Gaeltacht regions in Ireland, generally following conventions established by An tOilenach primarily, and to a lesser extent by Fiche Blian ag Fs and Peig (Nic Eoin 2007: 139-41). Over subsequent decades, members of the Blasket Island community produced several other notable memoirs, autobiographies, and collections of correspondence. However, the significance of [the] first generation of Blasket Island authors cannot be overestimated when considering the subsequent development of Gaeltacht autobiography. Not only did they provide narrative paradigms, but their work provided a model also for the collaborative mode of literary production which was to shape most subsequent examples of the genre (ibid.: 138). For this reason, it seems certain that critical attention will return again and again to these foundational texts, particularly An tOilenach / The Islandman and Peig, as the respective templates for male and female Native autobiography in Ireland.3 While the Irish-language literary tradition has produced certain texts with autobiographical dimensions, such as Cn Lae Amhlaoibh U Shilleabhin, there has been no organic or continuous development of autobiography as a literary genre in Irish-language literature.4 This discontinuity is perhaps partially responsible for the underdeveloped state of the critical discussion of Irish-language autobiographies. While An tOilenach / The Islandman has received an ever-growing amount of critical attention from a variety of critics in recent years,5 the autobiographies of Peig Sayers have received less critical attention from scholars, with the notable exceptions of substantial and significant articles by Joan Radner, Patricia Coughlan and those in the collection edited by Mire N Chilleachair. It is perhaps the case that An tOilenach draws the attention of interested critics by virtue of having been produced first, and is thus seen as a potential, even likely, influence on the production of Peig. Accordingly, it may be that some critics have assumed Peig to be less deserving of their attention. Works such as An tOilenach and Peig may be regarded as Gaeltacht autobiographies, that is, an autobiography with a member of a Gaeltacht community as its author-subject, but they might also be regarded as what I have described elsewhere as Native autobiographies. A Native autobiography is typified by its process of production, which is cross-cultural, collaborative, and usually involves multiple participants acting in three roles: Native, editor, and translator. In the case of An tOilenach / The Islandman, the initial collaboration between Toms Criomhthain, An Seabhac and Brian Ceallaigh led to further collaborations with Robin Flower, Pdraig Ua Maoileoin and Sen Coilein, resulting in three Irish-language editions of the text and an English-language translation. In the model I describe here, the text is authored not by a single person, but by the collaboration between several individuals acting in certain, even multiple, roles. The Autobiographies of Peig Sayers Peig, the first autobiography of Peig Sayers, was produced by at least three collaborators. Peig dictated her life-story to her son, Mchel Gaoithn, at the urgings of Mire N Chinnide.6 The resulting text was published in 1936. It was later translated into English by Bryan MacMahon in 1974. The authorship of either the Irish or the English versions of the text becomes a distributed function, rather than a quality inherent in an individual. Peig told the stories to her son. In the absence of recordings of their sessions together, it becomes impossible to distinguish with absolute certainty between Peigs contributions to the text and her sons. Despite the fact that Peig appears to fit the mould of an as-told-to autobiography, note the presence of what amounts to two separate editors: Peigs son, Mchel, and Mire N Chinnide, who both contributed to and shaped the text in their own ways. Gaoithn may have also acted at times in the Native role, contributing to the text as an informant, even in the voice of Peig, as the narrator. For instance, the stylistic reflex of a litheoir / dear reader is one that is used throughout Peig, but also throughout Gaoithns own autobiography, Is Truagh n Fanann an ige (1953), suggesting the possibility that certain stylistic, even iconic, features of the narrative voice in Peig, such as the reflex toward narrating interior, silently-voiced commentary from her own mind (i maigne fin), stem from Mchel working in collaboration with Peig. While this is perhaps a speculative reading, it serves to indicate the manner in which Mchel and Peigs contributions to the text may be so thoroughly synthesised that separating them with certainty is most difficult, if not impossible. More mysterious, perhaps, is N Chinnides influence on the text. Not only did she edit the text before publication, she was also instrumental in initiating the project, a fact prominently noted by both Peig and her son in Peig.7 According to her foreword in Peig, N Chinnide also took the step of reading the manuscript, as produced by Gaoithn, back to Peig, for the purpose of making corrections.8 It is likely that N Chinnide did influence Peigs choices of how she narrated her life from before, and possibly during, her collaboration with Gaoithn. But how does one account for this type of influence, one which leaves no direct evidence, in a reading of the text? Furthermore, Peig also produced two other autobiographies in collaboration with her son. The second text, Machnamh Seanmhn (An Old Womans Reflections), was published in 1939, and once again emerged from the collaboration between Peig, her son, and N Chinnide.9 A third text, Beatha Pheig Sayers, was published by Gaoithn in 1970, although he likely completed the manuscript sometime around 1940.10 Beatha Pheig Sayers retold, sometimes quite differently, several of the events and anecdotes found in the first two autobiographies. To understand the relationship between these works, which constitute a textual cluster of Peig Sayers autobiography, I would position the first Irish-language edition of Peig (1936) as the central text, not necessarily because it was the first published, or because it is the text that has been most read, but rather because the other texts in the immediate cluster exist in relation to it. The second and third autobiographies were published following the success of Peig, and their contents may be read as a discourse or commentary on the contents of the first autobiography. In addition, while Peig was translated into English, it is unlike other Blasket autobiographies which, arguably, have been more read in English than in Irish, as Peig was not translated immediately, and so the Irish version of the text was prominent for a period of almost four decades. Although it is a very significant text, it is still not enough to read Peig in isolation, whether in Irish or English. This reading would not have the scope or perspective to offer significant insight into how the various collaborators in their roles as Native, editor and translator contributed to the published text. To understand the agendas motivating Peig, her son, Mchel, her editor, N Chinnide, and translator, MacMahon, we must look to the perspective offered by reading the textual cluster around Peig. Since there are no extant records of the working sessions, the published text of Peig (1936) is itself the record of the collaboration, and to gain insight into its workings, we must rely on the multiple texts produced over time to give some evidence as to what decisions and negotiations were made during the production of the texts. The textual cluster is also our primary source from which to determine to what degree those decisions were cooperative or coerced. Reading Collaboratively-produced Autobiography Discussion about the relative merits of Peigs three autobiographies has been stimulated recently by the publication of Patricia Coughlans latest article on Peig Sayers and her place in Irish culture, Rereading Peig Sayers: Womens Autobiography, Social History and Narrative Art (2007: 58-73).11 In her writing on Peig Sayers, Coughlan has reinvigorated the discussion about how best to read Peigs life across three autobiographies, in addition to the copious amounts of folklore she produced in collaboration with various collectors. Coughlan has made a particularly significant intervention in the debate over authorship in the autobiographies of Peig Sayers. As she summarises the debate, there are two polarised positions: one suggesting that Peig herself is the author and the other extreme arguing that Gaoithn is the author (ibid.: 60-61). The strong desire to identify a single author as a pre-requisite to the act of reading stems from a Romantic theory of authorship, which, in the case of autobiography, seeks to guarantee absolute identity between author, narrator and protagonist in the text. In her brief discussion of the question of authorship in Sayers first autobiography, Coughlan concludes: My strong suggestion, therefore, is that we should credit Peig with her authorship, however collaboratively exercised in conjunction with her son (ibid.: 61, emphasis in the original). I wholeheartedly agree with the tenor of Coughlans conclusion, but would modify it slightly to say that we should credit Peig with agency, and that credit for authorship should go to the collaboration that produced the published text. It was no small obstacle to the production of a printed, published autobiography, for instance, that Peig Sayers did not have direct access to the technologies of writing in Irish or mass-print publishing. It may have been impossible for Sayers to have produced any text in Irish that could be printed and distributed on a large scale on her own. It seems fair to conclude that she needed collaborators for there to even be a text for critics to discuss. This is not to detract from Peigs successes in exercising her agency as a collaborator, as a narrator, and, indeed, as the protagonist of her three autobiographies. To say that the author must be either Mchel or Peig that it must be one or the other even if Peig is finally judged to be the one, true author, is, in an ironic twist, actually undermining of Peigs agency. This monological view suggests that Peigs decision to work with a collaborator, which she chose to do multiple times, was a weakness, a mistake that ideally would be corrected to undo the collaboration and remove Mchels contributions entirely. But if we are to take seriously the idea that Peig had significant agency in the production of texts representing her accumulated knowledge, her performances, and her life, and I think there is ample evidence for so doing, then we should take her agency in choosing collaborators seriously as well. She chose to work with Mchel, not once or twice, but three times. And it must be considered, as she did not produce any other published autobiographies with her numerous other collaborators, such as Seosamh Dalaigh, Kenneth Jackson or Robin Flower, that Gaoithn was an integral part of the production of these texts, and that without his collaboration there might be no autobiography at all, not to mention three. The persistent, if seldom acknowledged, idea that the texts we have are somehow less than a non-existent, ideal text is deeply undermining of Peigs agency as a collaborative author. The implicit suggestion that hovers in the background of many considerations of collaboratively-authored texts is that we should read them only to measure how they fall short of an imagined, single-authored, ideal text. How can a reading of the actual text proceed when it is being measured against a text that was never produced? Such readings as these cannot help but miss what is actually present in the text, since they do not pay attention to the actual text that was produced. Re-reading Beatha Pheig Sayers Coughlans conclusions about the third autobiography, Beatha Pheig Sayers (1970) are of particular interest, as she sees it as fundamentally more Gaoithns work than Peigs. This is of particular significance for any reader interested in discerning the contributions of specific collaborators to the individual texts. Both Peig and Machnamh Seanmhn were produced by Sayers, Gaoithn and N Chinnide in collaboration (and later translated by MacMahon and Ennis respectively). However, Beatha Pheig Sayers was produced without N Chinnide, and is usually listed with Mchel Gaoithn as its sole author, even though the text is presented as autobiographical, not biographical. Coughlan describes it as published long after Peigs death and the unequivocal product of Maidhcs own imagination (2007: 61). As already noted, Beatha Pheig Sayers was likely completed in manuscript around 1940. Coughlan, however, couples the books late publication with a comparative reading between this text and the first two autobiographies to find a falling off of interest and quality in the third volume. This falling off is suggested as proof that ӠGaoithn produced the third autobiography of his own accord and without significant or active collaboration with Peig (ibid.). On the other hand, the protagonist of Beatha Pheig Sayers is more outspoken, more independent, and exercises her agency more bluntly and with far less servility than the more (at least outwardly) docile and passive protagonist of Peig. Regardless of whether or not the protagonist of the third autobiography is more a product of Mchel than Peig, Coughlans reading seems to disregard the achievements of the third text due to a negative assessment of it on the basis of deficient authorship. While Coughlans work is an excellent example of what can be achieved through close reading, she does not accept that all of the Peig texts are equally the results of collaborative production, and argues instead for the higher value of those texts that are more authored by Peig than by her collaborators. The Story of the Match: Peig Indeed, many of the substantive differences between Peig and Beatha Pheig Sayers revolve around the story of Peig Sayers match to Peatsa Flint Gaoithn. In Peig, the story of the match is covered in a single, thematically-unified chapter. This is consistent with the general structure of Peig: themed chapters arranged in chronological order. This event is also used to make assertions about matches generally, as well as to tell the story of Peigs own match. In the story as told in Peig, her brother, Sen, arranges the match without her input, she does not know her prospective husband or his family, and she narrates with extravagant humility after meeting them for the first time: Each one of them was too good a man for me even if I were seven times a better woman than I was (Sayers 1974: 151). In the end, she accedes to her fathers wish that she marry, saying, whatever pleases you pleases me, in another extravagant gesture towards male authority (ibid.: 151). Peig, in her role as narrator, both establishes, and fulfills, conventions relating to humility, and a daughters deference to her fathers authority, in a single textual genuflection to patriarchal authority. However, the actual hinge at the heart of the episode reads differently. When her father asks her if she will go to the Island, emphasising the risk and hardship of an Island life, rather than asking if she will marry the prospective husband, Peig-the-narrator freezes the action to reflect: I considered for a while for I had two choices in the palm of my hand to marry or go into service again. I was sick and tired of that same service and I thought it would be better for me to have a man to my back and someone to protect me, and to own a house too, where I could sit down at my ease whenever Id be weary. (Sayers 1974: 151) In this sequence both Peig-as-narrator and Peig-as-protagonist are working very hard to provide ethnographic detail, in the form of generalisations about match-making, to serve as context for her own actions within that general context. So while conventions are established and satisfied, there is also a powerful assertion of agency in a sphere that is conventionally shown to be in the control of men, especially when arranging a match for a dowry-less daughter. At the very moment of submission and powerlessness, Peig-as-narrator redefines the situation as two choices in the palm of her hand and, whatever about the terrors of life on the island, she frames the choice to marry as a choice between autonomy and servitude. She portrays the choice as between having her own house, or being continually under the thumb of such female tormentors as her sister-in-law and her second employer. In Machnamh Seanmhn, translated as An Old Womans Reflections, the text is a formal mixture of the oral genre of seanchas and the literary genre of memoir, which often inclines towards the anecdotal. Of the eighteen chapters, roughly a third involve discourse about love and marriage, suggesting that marriage, along with birth and death, was a defining event in the consideration of a persons life, and that Peig had a lot to say about marriage, and more to say about other topics, such as hardship and faith, by talking about marriage. She does not discuss her own match and marriage in this text; perhaps as it did not fit well with the genre of seanchas, and even more likely as it had already been described in the first autobiography, Peig. The Story of the Match: Beatha Pheig Sayers In Beatha Pheig Sayers, which reverts to the style and voice of the first text, Peig, anecdotes are woven into a chronological narrative frame centred on Peigs life and the people she meets. Peig-as-narrator expands from her own story to include stories about people she meets in the course of the narrative, or expands thematically on some anecdote or story about a person mentioned, often concluding with a proverb or moral that offers perspective on some event in the narrative. Peig-as-narrator discusses several subjects more frankly in the third autobiography, such as drinking and the raw hatred for landlords. She also discusses frivolous but risqu topics such as buying ballad sheets, probably printed in English, which her employer describes as trash, and fortune telling, in the form of an encounter with a card reader. Bonn dh insint ar gach scal, as the saying goes,12 and in Beatha Pheig Sayers, the collaborative decision on Peig and Mchels part to retell the story of Peigs match as a romance may not be just the fantasy of a son wishing to imagine that his parents had a marriage born out of love and romance rather than economic concerns. It may indeed represent a further collaboration between Peig and Mchel that deliberately tells the story another way, perhaps because having the more conventional version in print already made it permissible. In Beatha Pheig Sayers, the story of Peigs match, which is perhaps the pivotal moment in her life, is developed over the course of the text, rather than within a single chapter. This is a significant shift in structure, as it makes the story of her match the organising principle of her sense of her own life and selfhood, rather than having a series of semi-independent chapters arranged in chronological order. Her husband-to-be, Peatsa Flint Gaoithn, first comes to her attention when he helps to save a man from the sea. He is a local hero. Over the course of several chapters, Peig-as-narrator uses foreshadowing to indicate the particular significance of Peatsa Flint to her. In the meantime, Peig rejects a match proposed for her by her second mistress, stating: N phsfad aoinne f mar drt cheana, gan gr do bheith agam do ( Gaoithn 1970: 55) [I won't marry anyone, as I have said, if I dont love him]. Unlike the first text, in which elaborate gestures are made to the primacy of male authority over the process of match-making, in this text, Peig refuses the match categorically and in no uncertain terms, despite its economic benefits to herself and her family, and ignores her father in favour of discussing the situation with her mother. She says, Nl faic agam le r, a Mham, arsa mise. Ach nl aon fhonn orm aon mhac feilimeora a phsadh. (ibid.: 66) [I have nothing to say, Mam, I said. But I have no desire to marry any farmers son]. The necessity of gr is clearly and consistently stated in Beatha Pheig Sayers as an essential condition if Peig is to marry. Later in the text, she meets a woman from the Great Blasket, who, in an encounter reminiscent of the riddling game (in which one is challenged to correctly name a speaker often using deeply intuitive knowledge), identifies Peig, saying: Agus is tusa Peig Sayers go bhfuil Peatsa Flint mr leat (ibid.: 116) [And you are the Peig Sayers of whom Peatsa Flint is very fond indeed]. Peatsa Flint has seen her in town and fallen in love with her from afar. Eventually the match is made, with Peig carefully managing the romance through the actions of her brother, Sen. But the story is as much about Peigs process of deciding if she could become one of the exotic, wild and strange island-women, as it is about deciding if she wants to marry Peatsa Flint. Peig-as-narrator concludes this version of her story by saying: Bhos ssta leis an saol ar shl. Bh mo chad ghr agam agus fear mn macnta n dirt focal searbh liomsa n gur scar an bs le chile sinn (ibid.: 150) [I was satisfied with my life in one way. I had my first love, and he was a fine and gentle man that never said a sharp word to me until we were parted by death]. In Beatha Pheig Sayers,Peigs self is both integrated and individuated through the narrative of her love match, and her sense of self is ultimately based on her success in this area. Three narrative arcs are woven together: her escape from domestic service which she regards as worse than servitude; her romance which leads to marriage with Peatsa Flint; and, her metamorphosis into an island-woman who had the strength, courage and skill to endure life on the Great Blasket. But it is the retelling of the story of her match that provides narrative unity, satisfies the organic and chronological imperatives of the form of Native autobiography, and enables the satisfactory resolution of the other two arcs. In this way, Peig uses her match as a way of narrating her life in Beatha Pheig Sayers, and this collaborative, textual performance should not be excluded from the study of her oeuvre. Notes  Toms Criomhthains work An tOilenach (1929) was edited by Pdraig Siochfhradha (alias An Seabhac). An tOilenach was translated into English as The Islandman (1934) by Robin Flower. However, as Philip OLeary (2004: 569, n. 167) has explained: It is worth noting that one of the very first Gaeltacht autobiographies was written in 1926, predating An tOilenach by three years, but was not published until 1968. This work was the schoolmaster Diarmaid higeartaighs Is Uasal Cird (It is a noble occupation), ed. Stiofn hAnnrachin (BC: Foilseachin Nisinta Teranta, 1968). Criomhthain had also completed his manuscript in 1926 even though it was not published until 1929. In any case, An tOilenach was received and welcomed as the first by critics and readers, and it is still widely regarded as the first Gaeltacht autobiography. 2 Muiris Silleabhins Fiche Blian ag Fs (1933) was translated as Twenty Years A-Growing in 1933 by George Thomson and Moya Llewellyn Davies, and Peig Sayers Peig, a Scal Fin (1936) as Peig: The Autobiography of Peig Sayers of the Great Blasket Island in 1974 by Bryan MacMahon. 3 In my work on Irish and Native American cross-cultural, collaboratively-produced autobiographical texts, I use the term Native autobiography to describe texts whose production involves individuals acting in the roles of Native, editor and translator. See Eastlake 2009a and Eastlake 2009b for further discussion of this term and its applications in the context of Ireland. 4 Cn Lae Amhlaoibh U Shilleabhin was a diary kept between 1827-1835 by Amhlaoibh Silleabhin, a school-teacher and shop-keeper living in Callan, co. Kilkenny, and has since been published in various forms and selections of it have been anthologised, see de Bhaldraithe (1970). 5 See Eastlake (2008), Lucchitti (2009) and Quigley (2003). 6 Patricia Coughlan (2007: 60) states that Peig dictated the opening chapters to N Chinnide, and the remainder to her son. 7 Lan N Chonallin is also credited with encouraging the project, although, apparently, not with participating directly in its production. 8 See Ramhr an Eagarthra (Sayers, 1998: 10). 9 According to Coughlan, Peig dictated both her first and second autobiographies for the most part to her son. However, Mirn Nic Eoin maintains that the second text, Machnamh Seanmhn, was dictated to N Chinnide. See Coughlan (2007: 59) and Nic Eoin (2007: 137). 10 See Nic Eoins assessment of time of writing as compared to time of publication (2006: 281). 11 This article is an updated version of Coughlans article, An Liri ar Shaol na mBan i dTacsanna Drbheathaisnise Pheig Sayers (1999: 20-57). 12 The proverb is also known in a longer version: Bonn dh insint ar gach scal agus dh leagan dag ar amhrn and can be translated as follows: There are two ways to tell every story and twelve versions of a song. Works Cited Coughlan, Patricia, 1999, An Liri ar Shaol na mBan i dTacsanna Drbheathaisnise Pheig Sayers in Mire N Chilleachair (ed.), Peig Sayers Scala, 1873-1958 (Ceiliradh an Bhlascaoid 3), Baile tha Cliath: Coiscim, 20-57. , 2007, Rereading Peig Sayers: Womens Autobiography, Social History and Narrative Art in Patricia Boyle Haberstroh and Christine St Peter (eds.), Opening the Field: Irish Women: Texts and Contexts, Cork: Cork ҹ޸þ Press, 58-73. de Bhaldraithe, Toms. 1970, Cn Lae Amhlaoibh, Baile tha Cliath: An Clchomhar Tta. Eastlake, John, 2008, Native American and Irish Native Autobiography: A Comparative Study, Unpub. PhD Diss., National ҹ޸þ of Ireland, Galway. , 2009a, The (Original) Islandman?: Examining the Origin in Blasket Autobiography in Nessa Cronin, Sen Crosson and John Eastlake (eds.), Anil an Bhil Bheo: Orality and Modern Irish Culture, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 241-255. , 2009b, Orality and Agency: Reading an Irish Autobiography from the Great Blasket Island Oral Tradition 24/1, 1-16. Lucchitti, Irene, 2009, The Islandman: The Hidden Life of Toms OCrohan (Re-imagining Ireland Vol. 3.), Oxford: Peter Lang Publishing. N Chilleachair, Mire, (ed.), 1999, Peig Sayers Scala, 1873-1958, (Ceiliradh an Bhlascaoid 3), Baile tha Cliath: Coiscim. Nic Eoin, Mirn, 2007, Twentieth-Century Gaelic Autobiography: From Lieux de Mmoire to Narratives of Self-Invention in Liam Harte (ed.), Modern Irish Autobiography: Self, Nation and Society, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 132-155. , 2006, Contemporary Prose and Drama in Irish: 1940-2000 in Margaret Kelleher and Philip OLeary (eds.), The Cambridge History of Irish Literature, Vol. II, Cambridge: Cambridge ҹ޸þ Press, 270-316. Criomhthain, Toms, 1929, An tOilenach (edited by An Seabhac), Baile tha Cliath: Oifig an tSolthair. OCrohan, Toms, 2000 [1934], The Islandman (translated by Robin Flower), Oxford and New York: Oxford ҹ޸þ Press. Gaoithn, Mchel, 1953, Is Truagh n Fanann an ige, Baile tha Cliath: Oifig an tSolthair. , 1970, Beatha Pheig Sayers, Baile tha Cliath: Foilseachin Nisinta Tta. OGuiheen, Mchel, 1992 [1982], A Pity Youth Does Not Last (translated by Tim Enright), Oxford and New York: Oxford ҹ޸þ Press. OLeary, Philip, 2004, Gaelic Prose in the Irish Free State, 1922-1939, ҹ޸þ Park: Pennsylvania State ҹ޸þ Press. ӠSilleabhin, Muiris, 1933, Fiche Blian ag Fs, Baile tha Cliath: Cl Talbid. OSullivan, Maurice, 2000 [1933], Twenty Years A-Growing, (translated by Moya Llewelyn Davies and George Thomson), Oxford and New York: Oxford ҹ޸þ Press. Quigley, Mark, 2003, Modernitys Edge: Speaking Silence on the Blasket Islands, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies 5/3: 382-406. Radner, Joan N., 1989, The Woman Who Went to Hell: Coded Values in Irish Folk Narrative, Midwestern Folklore 15/2: 109-117. Sayers, Peig, 1998 [1936], Peig: Tuairisc a Thug Peig Sayers ar Imeachta a Beatha Fin (edited by Mire N Chinnide. Eagrin scoile, n. d. given), Baile tha Cliath: Comhlacht Oideachais na hireann. , 1998 [1938], Scalta n mBlascaod (edited by Kenneth Jackson), Baile tha Cliath: An Cumann le Baloideas ireann. , 1980 [1939], Machnamh Seanmhn (edited by Mire N Chinnide and Pdraig Ua Maoileoin, 2nd ed.), Baile tha Cliath: An Gm. , 1987 [1962], An Old Womans Reflections (translated by Samus Ennis), Oxford and New York: Oxford ҹ޸þ Press. , 1983 [1974], Peig: The Autobiography of Peig Sayers of the Great Blasket Island (translated by Bryan MacMahon), Dublin: The Talbot Press. John Eastlake has published articles on An tOilenach / The Islandman, co-edited the recently-published collection of essays, Anil an Bhil Bheo: Orality and Modern Irish Culture, and is currently writing about the production of Irish and Native American autobiographies during the first half of the twentieth century. He completed his PhD in Irish Studies in 2008 at the  CONTACT _Con-3EED65011 \c \s \l Centre for Irish Studies, National ҹ޸þ of Ireland, Galway. Eastlake lectured across a broad range of subjects in Irish Studies at NUIG, and will begin an IRCHSS Post-Doctoral Fellowship, co-hosted by Roinn an Bhaloidis and Roinn na Nua-Ghaeilge, ҹ޸þ College Cork, in Autumn 2009.     PAGE 26 John Eastlake PAGE 25 Bonn Dh Insint ar Gach Scal: Re-reading Beatha Pheig Sayers Bascna 5 (2009): 22-36 +-@ABCD  /   . N L M N ' V g?_ 1CDEjnz{(5[mrv;{*GLP hr6 hE6 h&3h~Y h_0J h&3h_hrhR hrCJaJhR hR CJaJhh h~Yhrh&3hr6 h&3hrh~YCADSTM N [ `){+22;BC1KNK#Ogd}csgd}csgd_gdrgdr gd_dhgdrgdr $ \a$gdR gd~YP9 @FcC !Fv !""$=$]$a$b$$$$$$%"%a%e%%%&1&j&k&''''''L(M())))))g*h*w****+ h}cs6 hr6hSLhrh}cshkh&3hr0J"h&3hr6 h_0J h&3hrO+%,),O-S---_.d.#/'/0011512223K3k33333 4 4R4r45555556!6.6[7{77777888:8?8r8888;4;f<<<<N=n=@@BCCCGC[CCCCWD\D`DqDDEEEEEF F2Fh^h^hr6hr h_0JhSLh}csh&3hr6 h&3hrS2FQFdFFFG$G>GrGG H5HHHHHTItIIIJJKIKNKKKKKKKKKrLvLLM7M=MMNBNqN}NNNNOOsOO]P}PQQ`QaQbQcQ1RQRTTTTTUVV!V.VbVjVZWzW{XXXXXY Yh)8hr6 h7$6hSLhrhEh7$h^h}csh&3hr6 h&3hrP#OQQpRqRUX YK\ `2illp/qrstt u>uIvgdgdh`hgdfh`hgdfgdfgdrgd7$gdr dh^gdr!]gdhgdR  YYYY]Y}YYK\k\\\\\\\\\\p^^^X_x_Xawaxaaaaaaabb b bPcocpccccccccccccccdd d-d2d3dqdde(eYe^eeeeeeeƾƾƾƾʰʰƾhr h.hr h.h.h.mH sH h.hSL h7$hrh7$mH sH h%vhr0J h_0Jh7$ h&3hrh&3hr6Deeeeef4f5f6ffggg^hhhh-i.i1i2i6iIiJiOiu?u@uuuuuIvKvYvhDh5 h%vhhhDhg 6 hDhg hg hg 6 hE6 h_0JhDh6hg hpqK hDhGYvvvvvvw/w?wAwBwowpwqwrwwwwwxxxx'x(xBxCxkxxxxxxxxxy y yyy7yJykymyyyyyyyyyyzŽŹŝŹŒh&3hw}6 h&3hw}hw}hINh!]aJh&3hr6hN h&3h!]h!]hnh]G h&3hr hg 5hg h5 hg h h%vhhg h_0JhDh5 hDh6Ivv?wxx(x yyTzz{j||s}\~/qHƁVփ |^`|gdrgdrdhgdrgdzzzz,zGzTzkzzzzzzz{{#{D{F{r{v{w{z{{{{{{{{{{.|O|]|c|j|{||||||||| }}}}}6}7}9}S}V}q}s}}}}}}}}}}}׿׻̴̴̴ hr0J" hN6 h&3hNhn hSL6h&3h`6hN h&3h`h&3hr6 h`aJh`h%vhr6 h&3hrhA2hrB}~~5~7~Q~Z~\~b~i~{~~~~~~~~$-/DIJKXp+,8GHqw|}HJ^_Ɓ9:Paiςق GJehr hn6hhSLhINhA2aJ h&3hN h&3hrh&3hr6h&3hN6hNMelmnoƃʃփ*-9bkȄ ,->Ipwxz~Ʌ()kzφц҆܆߆%¸hnhr0J$6hrhr0J$hhr0J$5hhA25 hSL6h&3hrH*hINhA2aJ h6h&3hr6hmH sH  h&3hrhAghjkmnpqstډۉ܉$a$gd, $hh]h`ha$&`#$gdrgdA2dhgdr |^`|gdr%Z>?WXeghiklnoqrtu{|~ƉىډۉŸxmahECJaJmH sH h,hECJaJh\!hE6CJaJh\!hECJaJhEhECJaJ hE0Jht80J5\mHnHuhE0J5\jhE0J5U\h#Vjh#VU hrhr h&3hrjhrhr0J$Uhrhr0J$hnhr0J$6&ۉ܉ hrhrh#V hE6]hE܉gdrh]hF 00hP:pCPBP .!"#$% Dp^% 2 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH F`F Normal$a$CJ_HaJmH sH tH H@H  Heading 1$dh@&5\mH sH V@V  Heading 2$<@&5OJQJ\^JmH sH V@V  Heading 3$<@&5CJOJQJ\^JaJH@H  Heading 5$@&>*CJaJmH sH DA`D Default Paragraph FontViV  Table Normal :V 44 la (k (No List @&@ Footnote ReferenceH*R>@R Title$<@&a$5CJKH\aJmH sH JC@J Body Text Indent5\mH sH @"@@ Caption xx5\mH sH F@2F  Footnote TextCJaJmH sH B@B Body TextF$d%d&d'dNOPQCJaJmH sH VR@RV Body Text Indent 2dh`mH sH >*@a> Endnote ReferenceH*D+@rD  Endnote TextCJaJmH sH 4@4 Header  !.)@. Page Number4 @4 Footer  !*W* Strong5\HS@H Body Text Indent 3 h`h@Q@@ Body Text 3dhmH sH 8J@8 Subtitle$a$6]<P< w Body Text 2 dx<O< $abstract CJaJmH sH DOD Citation!77]7^7CJaJB'@!B rComment ReferenceCJaJ0U10 r Hyperlink>*B*JOAJ r abstract TegnCJ_HaJmH sH tH PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] ` 'tttP+2F YenYvz}e%ۉEGHIKLMNPQRTU#OIv܉FJOSV>W^ '.1!!@ @H 0(  0(  B S  ? <$=$>$?$@$A$B$ C$D$E$2jEjjjkkqz :jMjjjkkq >i*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCityB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region (     -349IQTX/1G`<[F_ W ` g o p {    C E n o { | 5 6 m n v x : ; G Q GHPR/@EIScd3;IKevz  `cdhj=>acy"$ab,2CM N !!!!!!!h"i"""# #z#{#)$+$S%U%&&''('((5)7)*** ++++%+b+l+m+s+{++++++++++++++++++,, , ,m,s,y,,,,----(.0.6.8.t/z//////////////40A0C0E00000000/35363?3B3334444444444f5o5~55588888:::;;;;-;[;\;;;;;;;;;;;;q<r<============>!>">%>:>=>?>d>e>>>>>>#?&?-?1?W?f?m?s?u?v??@@H@I@@@@@kAuAvA}A~AAAAABB BBBBBBBC CC"C/C:CCCCCCCCCCCvDxD EEEEEEEEEFFF F^FaFdFjF}FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGG!G#G'G(GGGGGGGGGGGuHHHHII'I+I`IcIIOJRJSJUJqJLLLLLLLLLLNNN"N#N.N0NjNkNsO{O|OOOPPPPPPPPQ QQ!Q]Q_QQQQQQQQKTLTQTRTUTVT\TeTjTsT{TTTTTTTTTTVVVVVVVqW{W|WWWvYxYzY{YYYYYYYYYYYYYZ Z ZZZZn[p[s[t[x[y[}[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\\\\&\.\:\C\\\^]_]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]-^3^7^>ٰϰ"ϳ______⸿````(-6kkkkk ll+l/lSlUlVl_lllllllmmm(mMmUmWm[mmmmmmmmm n n nnn#n7n;nTnZnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooo!o"o'orowoxo{o|oooooooooooooooooooo(p0pFpLpMpOpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppqq#q$q(q)q/q0q1q8q9qFqHqeq|qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqr r rrrr"r#r,r4r8rDrNrOrRrTr\r]r^r~rrrrrrrsss4sAsFsKsTsXsYs`sjsrstsws{sssssssssssst tttGtdthtjtstttutzttttttttttttttttt u uuuuu#u-u9uCuGuQu\u`uauguiuquwu{u}uuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvv5v?vGvivuvvvvvvvvvwww$w1wwCwNwXwZw`wgwnwww{wwwwwwwwwwwwx$x/x5x6x8x9x?xBxCxGxOxSxqx}xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyy$yHyOy_yeykyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzz z zzz"z:z@zAzFzGzIzPzSz]zazezfznzuzzzzzzzzzzz{{ {{{G{M{T{V{\{]{c{s{x{y{|{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{|| | ||||"|(|/|5|9|>?||||||||||-56>ʰ鰨ܰ}}}}}}}}}}}}ɧ)-/ɴ~~~~~~~~ͭ~%*.348:"',-/0<ghhjkkmnpqstŁƁ́́ҁӁف܁S'ght3ACDD   IIIIee!e"e7h8h@pBpqq6u7u7x8xzzzz}}~~~ghhjkkmnpqstفځہہ܁AD    IIIIeeee"e$e9h:h@pBpEpFpqq6u8u8x9x"z$zzz}}~~~ghhjkkmnpqst|$}N~KDLjJ_jq<{L4=>q7M=z0 />U BVVx]&M&EYf>e.j . Lgx ^`.^`.^`.^`. ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(hh^h`. hh^h`OJQJo(hh^h`CJOJPJQJ^JaJo(h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(ohpp^p`OJQJ^Jo(h@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(oh^`OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(ohPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(^`B*OJPJQJ^Jo(ph^`OJQJ^Jo(opp^p`OJQJ^Jo(@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(oPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(hh^h`CJOJPJQJ^JaJo(hh^h`)^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(opp^p`OJQJ^Jo(@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(oPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(8  ^ `OJPJQJ^Jo(-8  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(o8  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(8xx^x`OJPJQJ^Jo(8HH^H`OJQJ^Jo(o8^`OJQJ^Jo(8^`OJPJQJ^Jo(8^`OJQJ^Jo(o8^`OJQJ^Jo(hh^h`o(-^`B*OJPJQJ^Jo(ph^`OJQJ^Jo(opp^p`OJQJ^Jo(@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(oPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(ohpp^p`OJQJ^Jo(h@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(oh^`OJQJ^Jo(h^`OJPJQJ^Jo(h^`OJQJ^Jo(ohPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(^`o(-p^p`B*OJPJQJ^Jo(phpp^p`OJQJ^Jo(o@ @ ^@ `OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(o  ^ `OJQJ^Jo(hh^h`CJOJPJQJ^JaJo(hh^h`CJOJPJQJ^JaJo(^`B*OJPJQJ^Jo(ph^`OJQJ^Jo(opp^p`OJQJ^Jo(@ @ ^@ `OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o^`OJQJ^Jo(^`OJPJQJ^Jo(^`OJQJ^Jo(oPP^P`OJQJ^Jo(hh^h`o()U|dYf=/Lgx$m\q7BVx]&=ze.j!?? @@E<Vc~}|         ӳܰ簭rEC#?dzB%ڲĵ8<1flE5^J4/i4%46`A/O!]:sg n%USi}m,G,"$~>_[~\!hg5w}Fypc]hj@@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial?= *Cx Courier New;WingdingsA$BCambria Math#@:3G:3GKfPnBPnB4&&2qHP ?_2!xx aC:\Documents and Settings\Valrie\Application Data\Microsoft\Modles\Template article Beascna.dot>Family Photography: Visual Construction of a Collective Past 1ValrieUniversity College Corkt                     Oh+'0 $0 P \ h t@Family Photography: Visual Construction of a Collective Past 1ValrieTemplate article Beascnaҹ޸þ College Cork2Microsoft Office Word@@Z@~2@~2Pn՜.+,0( hp|  UCCB& ?Family Photography: Visual Construction of a Collective Past 1 Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FE1TableXjWordDocumentHSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q