Iain Howieson, Sabhal Mòr Ostaig UHI
Ruination and Decay – how exactly does the title of this series of seminars relate to traditional Gaelic poetry of the 19th century? Well, what it comes down to is the type of opinion which some 20th-century scholars published. Let me explain.
In 1974, the great Gaelic scholar Ruaraidh MacThòmais – in English, Derick Thomson – published a very important book, entitled An Introduction to Gaelic Poetry. Thomson was enormously well qualified to do this: a native speaker of Gaelic, Professor of Celtic at Glasgow University, editor and publisher of Gaelic, and himself a prolific poet in the language. By the time he was in his fifties, another Gaelic poet said he had ‘done more for Scottish Gaelic than any other man living.’
So, when An Introduction to Gaelic Poetry was published, it was widely regarded as a masterpiece, and in the decades since then no other single work on the subject has come close to it in thoroughness or in eminence. In the book, Thomson traces the entire history of Gaelic poetry, and shows that poetry of value was produced in every century. The literary quality Thomson values most highly in poetry of any age is innovation – which can be seen in the eighteenth century, and then again in the ‘Renaissance’ he identifies in the twentieth century – including the sort of works he himself was creating. So, innovation and merit in the eighteenth century, and then a renaissance in the twentieth. What about in between?
Well, this is where, in Thomson’s view and to use the title of this series of sessions, ruination and decay can be seen. He lists seven poets whose work he says is typical of the century – John MacLachlan, Evan MacColl, John Campbell, Donald MacKechnie, Malcolm MacFarlane, Neil MacLeod and John MacFadyen. Describing their poetry, Thomson uses words like ‘desultory’, ‘inert’, ‘dull and pedestrian’, and above all ... clichés. Obviously, to a critic who places particular emphasis on innovation, cliché is anathema. However, no close analysis of the poetry is offered which might justify his opinions.
Now, it must be agreed that the amount of literary analysis of traditional Gaelic poetry that has ever been undertaken is limited. In more recent times, both Ronald Black and Donald Meek have shown the way, and so perhaps the time is ripe for a systematic analysis of township poetry.
In other literatures, such as English, many different types of literary analysis have been undertaken over the years, especially during the course of the twentieth century, and a common belief is that close analysis of a text is what is important. I think a case can be made for the application of such analysis to Gaelic township poetry, so that a proper appraisal can be made of its qualities. But if we use a twentieth-century approach to poetry of the nineteenth century, are we not liable to run into the same issue that Derick Thomson encountered – that it’s full of clichés? Or is township poetry in some way qualitatively different?
In Gaelic communities of the 19th century, there was an oral tradition of Gaelic poetry that could be traced back through the centuries, and this tradition was still powerful, with at least one bard in most communities of any size. Most commonly, their poetry would be heard in the form of song – listened to by the whole community, gathered together in a cèilidh house. For this reason, it has to be accepted that the delivery and consumption of township poetry have much in common with those of folk song. However, there was definitely interaction between the oral tradition and the printed word, and so it cannot be argued that Gaelic township poetry is a genuine form of oral literature; but what can be said is that it shows influence from both the oral tradition and written literature.
Heda Jason writes:
"Oral literature, especially in verse form, makes use of numerous syntactic and prosodic features which are similar to those in the written literature of the same language. The two literatures have in fact influenced each other throughout history."
Jason also uses the term ‘an ethnopoetic work’ for a traditional poem or song, or for an oral work of any genre. So, what is the study of ethnopoetics? Well, Dennis Tedlock says:
"Ethnopoetics is a decentered poetics, an attempt to hear and read the poetries of distant others, outside the Western tradition as we know it now. "
In my opinion, the ethnopoetic outlook gives an insight which is potentially very helpful in looking at Gaelic township poetry. One of the fundamental tenets of ethnopoetics is that we should be open-minded about the workings of any type of poetry, rather than bringing along with us the baggage of preconceptions which we’ve formed in studying – for example – high written literature. We who have all been through an education which is substantially based on writing can think that our outlook is the ‘correct’ one, or even the ‘normal’ one, but maybe it isn’t: in 1982, Walter Ong pointed out:
"Of the some 3000 languages spoken that exist today only some 78 have a literature ... "
Ethnopoetics places emphasis on the relationship between the performer and his or her audience, which may be built by things like an enjoyable or attractive or moving melody, with a chorus, that gives the opportunity for joining in; a story that captivates the listeners, with characters with whom they can identify themselves, or even whom they know personally; and words and images that they recognise and relate to – images, quite often, drawn from the local area. As can be seen, a common factor in such aspects of the performance is familiarity, and such familiarity would be vital in establishing the rapport between performer and audience.
Now, this brings us, you see, to clichés – expressions and images which appear again and again. The Oral-formulaic Theory of Parry and Lord explains that recurrent expressions in oral epics give support to the performer in the construction of his or her works. John Miles Foley accepts this, but goes further with his theory of Immanent Art, postulating that there may be aesthetic reasons for the occurrence of repeated expressions too.
Imagery is enormously important in ethnopoetics. Using ideas from Roman Jakobson, Máire Ní Annracháin has explained the difference between the two major types of imagery – metaphor and metonymy. Metaphor, she says, is established on similarity, while metonymy is based on ‘contiguity’ or ‘association’. Metaphors generally depend for their effect on surprise or shock – ‘Oh yes – I see the similarity; I hadn’t thought of that before.’ Metonymy, on the other hand, depends on familiarity.
Some 20th-century scholars saw ruination and decay in the form of clìché in Gaelic township poetry of the 19th century. I believe that if we use ethnopoetics as a key to our close reading, it may be that we find that such features are there for genuinely aesthetic reasons. And then, we can decide whether the poetry shows ruination and decay or not, and our judgment will be based on thorough analysis.
Comments