MEMORY OF THE GREAT IRISH FAMINE:

Kevin Kosmatka

On May 15, 2022, the National Famine Commemoration was held in Strokestown House of County Roscommon, Ireland. This ceremony, which has been held annually since 2008, commemorates the most devastating and tragic event in Ireland’s history, the Great Famine. Taoiseach Micheál Martin spoke to those sitting in the crowd, stating that, “It is impossible for us to imagine the feelings of hopelessness, anger and loss experienced by those who suffered through the Famine years. However, one of the most appalling aspects of the history of the Famine period is the knowledge that so much of the suffering was avoidable.”1 He continued. “Throughout our history the victims of the Great Famine have called on us to help their modern day counterparts in their time of need and generations of Irish people have responded to that call.” With this statement, Martin not only condemned the past behavior of Great Britain, but linked the suffering of the Irish with that of Ukraine. In an effort to remember the past, Martin called those listening to think about how suffering which took place in Ireland over one hundred and fifty years ago could be channeled into the present times:

Ireland has opened its doors to the people of Ukraine at their time of need and that crisis has brought home the importance of those who can help others, doing whatever they can to aid those in dire straits. This too is reflective of what we know about those compassionate and generous individuals who did what they could to help the people of Ireland during The Great Famine. Those contributions and acts of kindness must never be forgotten.2

While Martin’s sentiments called the world to action in a moment of crisis, it also proves that memory adapts to the need of changing times. To quote Irish historian Cormac Ó Gráda, “Collective memory always tells us more about the present than it does the past.”3

When taking a closer look at Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s speech at the 2022 National Famine Commemoration, it is evident that his remembrance of the famine serves a unique purpose. He calls spectators to remember the ways in which “compassionate and generous individuals” helped relieve the Irish of the unfathomable suffering they endured, and celebrates the fact that Ireland has opened its own doors to those who are currently fleeing their home country of Ukraine. There is no further mention of what exactly he meant by “compassionate and generous individuals,” nor does he elaborate on how the suffering of the Great Famine could have been avoided. Instead, Martin links the Great Famine with the suffering that people in Ukraine are facing, and does so in a way that is easily understood. In most cases, and especially in Ireland’s example, collective memory tends to gloss over important and necessary details of events that are complex and divisive. In Cormac Ó Gráda’s article “Famine, Trauma and Memory,” he illuminates the numerous problems that have risen in commemorating the Great Famine. He specifically argues against the nature of collective memory, which has for many years pushed forward the narrative that the Irish people collectively suffered during the famine. Furthermore, Ó Gráda argues that historical scholarship relating to the famine goes against the nature of collective memory, which suggests that the famine was unequal and divisive.4 Ó Gráda strongly criticizes the phenomenon of popular memory which he defines as when groups of people who are distanced from a historical event try to later make meaning of an event by adapting the narrative to fit present circumstances. While this is not the only function of popular memory, it is true that the collective memory of the famine has led to a distorted view of the events that took place in mid-nineteenth-century Ireland.

Before assessing the ways in which memory can enrich history, there is something to say about the ways in which historians have tried to understand the Great Famine. As Cathal Póirtéir points out, numerous histories of the Irish Famine attempt to unravel and explain the causes, events, and effects of the event itself, which means that there have been constant reinterpretations 4 of the Famine with changing emphases.5 Since these reinterpretations rely heavily on statistical analyses, there has been a reluctance to approach the famine in a qualitative way as Cathal Póirtéir does by engaging with the evidence of folklore. Many historians believe that the folklore of the famine carries a nationalist interpretation of the causes, events, and effects of the famine. Póirtéir successfully disproves this claim, by simply examining how the people of Ireland remembered the famine while being generations removed from it. Furthermore, Póirtéir goes against the populist images of the famine and explains how the “folk mind” has expanded the meaning and significance of the famine. By examining the famine in this way, it is possible to leave our old ideas and preconceptions behind and reconstruct the famine with the help of memory and folklore. By exploring the personal stories of those who were near to the Great Famine, those whose parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents experienced it, our understanding of the famine itself is enriched in ways that traditional research methods cannot achieve.

This study does not seek to analyze differing historical interpretations of the Great Famine. Rather, the goal is to showcase how memory can enrich our understanding of history. It is important to note that while the Great Famine was a time of unevenness and divisiveness, and it is not the intent of this study to gloss over the suffering that the people of Ireland endured during this period. Examining the stories and folklore of the famine can add to our knowledge and understanding of the famine and its impact, and more intimately, grasp just how complex the experiences of those who lived during the famine were. he experiences of the Irish people during such a tumultuous time may always be out of the grasp of the historian, but these sources bring us closer to an event that seems so far away. While the arguments in this paper are similar to those of Ó Gráda and Póirtéir’s, it will expand on Ó Gráda’s questions about the divisiveness of the Famine posed in his article “Famine, Trauma and Memory.” While this article convincingly argues for the divisiveness of the famine, it uses population census reports from 1841 and 1851 with the hopes of offering an answer to the question of how divisive the event actually was. Ó Gráda argues: “while it is not easy to identify any significant group of winners in the famine, the suffering was by no means evenly shared.”6 He follows this with even more data, stating that “for many, life went on normally.” The problem with this sort of argument is that while it can demonstrate that the famine might have been divisive, the data is not nearly as tangible or persuasive as primary narrative accounts are. Through examining Póirtéir’s Famine Echoes, a collection of primary materials from the Irish Folklore Collection, historians’ understanding of the Famine can be greatly expanded. In addition to the material collected by the Irish Folklore Commission, presented and translated in Famine Echoes, this paper also makes use of the Schools' Collection, a cache of writings from 1937-1939 supervised by the Irish Folklore Commission. Along with the Department of Education and The Irish National Teachers Association, senior primary school children, most about 10 years old, collectively produced 750,000 pages of local history and oral tradition from across the twenty-six counties of the Irish Free State.7 Relying on Ó Gráda’s argument, this paper will examine primary sources from two counties, County Kerry and County Donegal This will provide a qualitative portrait of the unevenness of the famine.

Many scholars including Ó Gráda remain skeptical of memory. In an article about famine memory, he states that, “asking folklore or oral tradition to bridge a gap of a century or more and generate reliable evidence of the famine was asking a lot.”8 While O’Grada appears to recommend skepticism in approaching this material, he actually dismisses its value. He admits that the material collected by the Irish Folklore Commission in the 1930s and 1940s, is distinct from the collective memory found in modern commemorations. He repeatedly warns readers of the distance that separates these accounts from the actual events themselves. Contrastingly, Póirtéir celebrates Irish folklore, and stands against those who remain skeptical of folklore as evidence. He argues that oral tradition in Ireland is stronger and more powerful than one might believe. When examining the Schools' Collection, much of the material supportsÓ Gráda’s central argument. The Great Famine was one of the most divisive and uneven events to take place in Ireland’s history, despite what popular memory says. However, quantitative historical analyses and other sources that diminish or ignore the significance of folklore do not provide the same insights as primary narrative accounts do. Primary narrative accounts from the Schools' Collection and from the archives of the Irish Folklore Commission not only portray the famine as divisive and uneven but offer us insights about the ways in which Ireland experienced and remembered the famine. If historians and other scholars desire to better understand the Great Famine and its uneven impact, they must allow memory to lead them into the past.

The Schools' Collection

The Schools' Collection contains hundreds of thousands of documents which vary in topic and emphasis. When examining even a fraction of the thousands of documents that relate to the Great Famine in the School’s Collection, it is evident that the famine was divisive. It was divisive to the point where Irish men and women stood apart from one another, fending for their lives and looking for any possible way to survive, even if it meant committing a crime against their neighbor. While the impact of the famine was vastly uneven, primary narrative accounts from the Schools’ Collection showcase the variety of experiences that occurred during the famine. Experiences differ because like all major historical events, they include people who live in different regions, have differing motives, and belong to varying socioeconomic classes. The documents in the Schools’ Collection shed light on several questions:How did everyday people survive? How did ordinary people attain food? Who did people blame for the famine? In what ways did religion come into conflict with those who experienced the famine? How did people of varying socioeconomic classes experience the famine? Did those living in rural areas suffer any more or less than those who lived in urban areas? By examining accounts from the Schools' Collection, it is possible to not only answer these questions but to perceive the uneven impact that the famine had on Ireland’s peoples.

Many sources have emphasized the various beliefs, attitudes, and motives of those who lived within this period. These emphases, while at times slight, are significant in that they expose the variety of experience that occurred during the famine. The fate of individuals and communities was determined by a number of factors, many of which they could not control. For those living on a small piece of land in rural Ireland during the mid-nineteenth century, dependence on the potato was almost certain. However, there were many instances where dependency on the potato did not determine life or death. Those who were fortunate had more than just potatoes to live on. Many farmers grew turnips, which turned out to be a popular alternative to potatoes. Other families had additional grains and cereals to which they could turn during such hard times. Some wealthier landowners raised livestock which they could turn to for sustenance. The blight that had struck Ireland in 1845 was widespread, though the impact was certainly not even. The impact not only differed from county to county, but it is clear that the famine’s impact had differed from district to district. Geographic location, religion, socioeconomic status, and other factors such as the presence of relief determined the degree to which one suffered. It was differences such as these that determined people’s fates during such a tumultuous period.

These accounts display the ways in which Ireland remembered the famine roughly one hundred years after the events. While many of these accounts tell the story of the famine in a general fashion, others go into detail about the specific events and atrocities that took place in particular districts. It is important to note that these stories were passed down to primary school students from both relatives and local storytellers. Stories are either told by parents or grandparents, who either shared stories from personal experience or heard them from others in their locality. Therefore, memory holds a significant role in these accounts. While many remain skeptical of these stories, they give readers a glimpse of how the Famine was viewed. As a divisive and tragic historical event, the Famine remained vivid in the minds of those who were generations removed from the event itself. These stories, while differing in both length and origin should be seen as pieces of a much larger picture. It is the job of historians to piece these stories together and create a mosaic that tells a more cohesive story of the Irish Famine.

Regional Differences

The two counties examined are County Kerry and County Donegal. While these are both coastal regions of Ireland, it was apparent that even so, people’s experiences differed district by district. ccounts from both counties include stories of those who used the sea to their advantage, and tales of those who traveled long and far with the hopes of finding sustenance. While many were hit hard when the blight struck, there were those who fared better than others based on where they resided. Where someone lived also had much to do with if their district received aid or not. These differences, while seemingly small affected each and every individual whether they had realized it or not.

Most informants wrote or orally gave a synopsis of the famine. Many accounts are similar in this way as they briefly describe the general significance of the famine before giving more detailed and varied information. A typical account reads:

The Famine was one of the greatest events in Irish history. It started in the year 1845 and it did not end till 1848. It did much harm to the people of this district. First of all the blight came on the potatoes and the crop failed not alone in the district but all over Ireland. The people of this district were stricken with despair. They had neither food nor money to buy it. Raw turnips, weeds, sea weeds, nettles, and dock leaves were commonly eaten in this district. The way they cooked them was, they boiled them with salt.9

This account gives a general and concise explanation of the famine. While it does not provide details about the number of people who suffered, it highlights the fact that people foraged for food in times of need. In coastal regions, people had access to more than just weeds and nettles. They often attempted to gather food and plants from the sea though in many cases were unsuccessful due to their unfamiliarity with seafood. While this particular account details what people ate during the famine, other sources are more specific and reveal more appalling details about the famine. “Black forty seven was not so bad in this locality as in other parts of the country although hunger and distress were prevalent,” stated Eugene Sullivan.10 This particular account dismisses the one important impact of the famine almost immediately, however Sullivan continues in his description of the event:

No tales of deaths from starvation were told about the inhabitants of Keel. Many people from other districts came into the parish in a very exhausted condition. A story is told of a man who came from Inch into the townland Of Castledrum. He was dieing of hunger and he knelt near the carcass of a dead horse. He ate the diseased flesh until it killed him.11

While it is believed that the impact of the famine had not particularly affected his district as much as the others, Sullivan reveals that the blight had caused people from other regions to travel to those that were better off. Accounts such as these are valuable in that they reveal the lengths that people from other districts went to in order to obtain food. During famine times, many people traveled across multiple counties as foragers, beggars, or thieves. This account in particular does not provide details about those who traveled, though Sullivan shares the story about a man who had arrived from Castledrum and died eating the raw flesh of a deceased horse. While it is difficult to discern the function of this particular story, it is certain that many travelers were on the verge of death due to either malnourishment or disease. Additionally, it reveals the degree to which people suffered during the famine. Therefore, accounts like this one can serve two separate functions. While it is true that many travelers were desperate and in search of edible plants and animals, the story about the man from Castledrum likely serves another function in the Irish oral tradition. We cannot be sure whether the story which Sullivan told is true or not, but it reveals to us that the suffering of the famine had left an imprint on the minds of every individual within Ireland, whether their district had been affected or not.

This informant dismisses the impact of the famine in their district yet provides information about the food available to those who lived in coastal regions: “The people were never very badly off in this district because they had plenty of fish and turnips and fish. They had two meals in the day. The people dug the ground three times over looking for a potatoe. Deaths were very few in this district. One man died of eating indigestible potato-skins.”12 The informant dismisses the impact of the famine in his district, even though later in the account, he recalls an instance during which one man suffered. It is clear from this account that the impact of the famine was lesser in regions where people had access to the sea. While many fishing nets and boats were pawned due to the famine, those who lived on the coast had more options than those who resided inland.

Another account from a distant district in Donegal contains additional information about how those living in coastal regions fared during the famine:

The people round here were not as badly off as the people from towns, and cities, because as this place is beside the sea, they had plenty to eat, such as, dulse, limpets, winkles, crabs, and fish. A great number of people used to come from towns to the sea side, to eat sea weed. A man from Burton-Port used to distribute meal to the people. Not many people died from these parts during the famine, because they had more food than the inland people.13

This account describes the types of food that people could find on the shore, including dulse, which is a type of Irish seaweed, and limpets, which are aquatic snails that live on rocky shores. Additionally, this informant notes the presence of aid in this particular district, which helped sustain various populations during the famine days. Accounts such as these vary in their descriptions of events and sometimes dismiss the impact of the famine, though it is clear that people who lived near the shore fared better than those who didn’t. It is impossible to gauge the degree to which people suffered in coastal regions, though it is important not to dismiss the validity of primary narrative accounts, as they contain valuable information about the ways in which everyday people avoided death and starvation. Additionally, these accounts reveal to us the lengths that Irish men and women went through to survive. Many sources in the Schools' Collection tell the stories of those who traveled far with hopes of reaching the coast. In fact, stories of those who made treacherous journeys from one county to the next are most common in coastal counties such as Donegal. Perhaps those who lived inland had heard of the abundance that the ocean had to offer, or maybe aid had not reached their district. Whatever the case was, it is evident that hunger prevailed against the Irish, and that one’s geographic location could determine their fate.

Numerous primary accounts from County Donegal reveal the significance of the ocean and its abundant supply of food: “The people gathered shellfish on the shore and when they were done gathering they would kindle a fire and boil this meat and eat them before they would go home.”14 Another account shows the ease at which people gathered food from the sea:

There was also a good supply of shellfish, such as cockles, mussels, ‘brallions’ and razor fish along the nearby shore where they gathered frequently, and in the chanel, a few hundred yards from where they lived, they often went ‘trampling’ for fluke. This meant going barefooted into the water where these flat fish were plentiful and, by putting a foot down on them as they lazily swam around, no difficulty was experienced in picking them out of the water and flinging them high and dry up on the strand. Many dozens of fluke, with a minimum effort, could be secured in this way in a short time.15

Accounts such as these not only portray coastal regions as plentiful but suggest that food from the sea saved many from dying of starvation. While there is much evidence that the sea was a valuable resource for those who suffered during the famine, Cathal Póirtéir argues that the ocean and the foods that came from it didn’t always save people from suffering. Many people often pawned their fishing nets and boats due to grinding poverty and lack of food.16 Additionally, many who had traveled to coastal regions either died before reaching their desired location or simply were not familiar with harvesting, cooking, or eating various types of seafood, which led to the transmission of disease.17 A particular source from County Donegal describes the knowledge required by one who desires to eat from the sea:

They of course used fish. This dulaman is a growth somewhat like carageen moss or as they call it here in Inishowen ‘crothar’ and is not edible until after the first severe frost in winter. It is not left to bleech like carageen but can be cooked (boiled) immediately after being pulled. It has to be boiled for two or three hours.18

While the sea was known for its abundance, Póirtéir’s findings, along with primary accounts such as this one, suggest that many people who had traveled far in search of food were not aware of the necessary precautions to be taken before consuming seafood. Similar to Indian meal, certain seafoods had to be carefully prepared before consumption, as seafoods were often contaminated with dioxins and pesticides that were harmful to people’s bodies. This is likely the reason that people didn’t maximize this opportunity to the fullest extent. Despite this reality, it is certain that those who lived in coastal regions were more likely to survive due to the prevalence of foods such as seaweeds, fish, and shellfish. It is also apparent that foragers, beggars, and those traveling long distances suffered due to their lack of knowledge and had no choice but to risk their lives in order to survive. While accounts from the Schools’ Collection are at times inconsistent and fail to provide quantitative information, they provide insights into the ways in which ordinary people survived and showcase the variety of experience that existed during the Great Famine.

Religious Differences

While popular memory suggests that Ireland collectively suffered during the Great Famine, accounts from the Schools' Collection showcase the religious tension that was prominent in many districts throughout Ireland during the period. A few decades before the famine, evangelical Protestants established numerous ‘colonies’ in Ireland which were located in rural counties in the West, one of which was County Kerry.19 This explains the prevalence of Protestant and Catholic tensions in the accounts gathered from County Kerry.

The colonies that existed before the famine served a number of purposes, though during the famine Protestants and clergymen in Ireland offered a number of resources to those whom they proselytized. In famine times, Protestants offered aid in the form of food to those in need, though many Irish Catholics were presented with a choice: they could either starve or choose to convert to Protestantism in order to survive. During the famine, Protestants were often referred to as soupers, because they offered soup with their evangelism, while those who converted were called jumpers. Many of the informants often swap the terms around, referring to those who “took the bait” as soupers. These sources also tend to villainize the Protestants and portray the typical Irish Catholic person as helpless or innocent. It is important to note that because these sources deal with the memory of the Irish people roughly one hundred years after the famine, it is often hard to discern how much of an impact proselytization had on people’s daily lives during the famine. This does not mean that readers should reject these accounts altogether. Collective memory is significant in that it allows for us to see what lived on in the minds of those who existed after the famine.

While many accounts within the Schools' Collection emphasize the prevalence of proselytization, there is also something to be said about the role that religion played in everyday life during the famine. Religion in and of itself was divisive. Even if a number of the accounts collected by the Irish Folklore Commission were to serve memory more than they do history it is important to note that religion played a significant role in how Irish people treated one another during the famine. Many accounts tell tales of religious generosity and paint a picture of the ways in which Protestants and Catholics coexisted during the famine period. It is essential that one looks to these accounts when trying to better understand the divisiveness of the famine.

A Mr. O’Connor of Duagh, County Kerry stated his discontent with how Protestants treated Irish Catholics during the time of the famine:

The Protestant landlords and their agent took advantage of the general starvation prevailing amongst the catholic peasantry to make the latter give up their religion. A daily donation of food in the shape of meat and soup was dished out to all catholic who pledged themselves to become Protestants. The few who took the bait were called ‘Soopers’ and to the present day their descendants are known by that name we very hear of such names as ‘Batt the Souper’ ‘John the Souper’.20

Later on the meat and food were replaced by money. This was called "Soup Money.20 In this particular account, the informant emphasizes the cruelness of the Protestants at the height of the famine. He states that while Protestants gave out food to the hungry, that only those who denounced Catholicism and turned to Protestantism would receive aid. Much like landlords, Protestants were seen as evildoers; they were seen as ones who withheld aid from Irish men and women who did not renounce Catholicism. For many Irish Catholics, deciding where to take aid from soupers was not only a matter of starvation, but a matter of pride. While accounts such as these are based in historical reality, they can mislead readers to believe that all Protestants were cruel and delighted in the suffering of Irish Catholics.

Other accounts counter this view. One informant named Walter Furlong from County Wexford stated that:

There was a public works scheme working on the road leading down to the Bridge of Tomentine. The men working on it got fourpence a day and their soup. The soup-kitchen was set up by a Protestant Society. They used to give tracts to the men to take home to their families. People took the soup at the time because they had nothing else and made a laughingstock to the soupers.21

This account highlights that Protestants were in fact tied to relief schemes such as road building and soup kitchens, though it also highlights the shame that Catholics felt in receiving the aid.

While many of these relief schemes were helpful in that they prevented people from dying of malnutrition and other related diseases, Irish Catholics were reluctant to receive aid from proselytizers as members of their communities looked down upon jumpers. For many it was a sign of weakness and humiliation: “I never heard of the soup being given except for renouncing the faith” stated Furlong. “People would renounce their faith for the time being, in the hope of going back to the old faith as soon as times got better.”22 While accounts such as these prove that aid was prevalent in many districts, they also show how desperate the hungry were. Accounts often have a negative view of Protestants and their efforts, though from examining Walter Furlong’s account, it is clear that many Protestants attempted to use aid to convert Catholics, who took the tracts Protestants handed out home with them. Perhaps the accounts found in the Schools' Collection reflect a general resentment with Protestants that goes back even further than the famine, though it is difficult to discern. However, it appears that Protestants used their resources in order to coerce poorer individuals to renounce Catholicism. While it is challenging to separate historical material from material that might serve other functions in the Irish oral tradition, it is certain that the impact of the famine had been much more drastic for Irish Catholics than Irish Protestants.

From primary accounts of the Schools' Collection there is evidence that Protestants and Catholics interacted with one another on a regular basis during the famine years. Many of the accounts showcase just how tense the relationships between Protestants and Catholics were. James Fennerty from Tubrid More, County Kerry provides an account that links food relief with religious conversion: “Mrs. Crosbie offered food to the people if they turned to be protestants.”23 Within the same account, he continues the story of the Protestant woman: “Mrs. Crosbie had a Catholic woman working in the dairy by the name of Margaret Barry. That woman used give away all what used be left in the dairy to the poor people. That was found out and she was left off at the last chance. Yet this did not stop her generous heart.”24 From this source it is evident that Protestants had extensive resources, especially in counties where “colonies” were set up in the early nineteenth century. There is no sure way of knowing whether or not Mrs. Crosbie was tied to any larger relief programs though it is certain that accounts such as these attempt to portray Protestants as immoral peoples. In contrast, this same account praises the Catholic woman who had a warm and generous nature, giving her a heroic role in the story. Heroic stories that uplift the oppressed are abundant in Irish folklore. One informant named Art O’ Murchadha recalled a time when Protestants exceeded Catholics in great numbers in his district:

There was a great man in the district. They called him "Big Mick (Michael Foley). The reason he was because he was the first to break the Protestants' ring in Miltown. The Protestants were to hold a meeting in Miltown and "Big Mick" organised the Catholics and then sent a challenge to the Protestants. They all met in Miltown. He gave the Protestants such a beating that they fled out of it. He did the same all over Kerry. He broke their strength and they never troubled the Catholics again.25

This account makes clear that Protestants exercised much control over the Irish Catholic population. This was likely because they were tied to numerous relief schemes and had resources which meant life or death to a starving population. This account is similar to the story of Margaret Barry, which depicts the Irish Catholic as a heroic and brave individual who stood up to Irish Protestants and their cruel efforts. Stories such as these are difficult to assess, as memory often tells us more about the present than the past. Perhaps the Irish people found it necessary to remember Protestants in this way. By including stories of Catholic heroism in connection with stories about Protestants, those who lived in the decades following the famine might have desired to show the bravery and courage of individuals whom Protestants failed to proselytize. Heroic stories of perseverance and collective activism likely allowed the people of Ireland to adopt a slightly more positive view of their nation’s past.

Landlords

While the Great Famine was divisive and its impact varied, it is also true that much of Ireland suffered either directly or indirectly due to the blight that struck in 1845. Although landlords did not starve as those who paid their rents did, many suffered financially for a variety of reasons. As Póirtéir highlights in Famine Echoes, landlords felt pressured by both the British government and those in Ireland who could no longer pay their rents.26 Prior to the famine, Irish landlords were known to fund the political careers of those in Britain who were elected to parliament. During the famine, the British government often blamed Irish landlords for the impact that the famine had on Ireland.27 Additionally, after the Poor Law Amendment Law of 1847, heavy taxation fell on the landlords in order to pay for relief schemes.28 The burdens imposed on landlords would lead to the eventual demise of many landlord families.

In Irish popular memory, many people attempt to blame specific actors for the impact that the famine had on their respective district. Landlords are the one of the most vilified groups in famine memory. Many Irish people, decades after the famine, continued to resent and feel anger towards them. While much of this is based in historical reality, it is also important to note that many accounts within the Schools' Collection and the Irish Folklore Commission’s archives speak fondly of landlords who assisted people during times of hardship. This runs counter to what is perceived as historical truth. While landlords were often demanding and cruel during the famine days, accounts exist that exalt landlords as honest and generous individuals. Considering both perspectives is crucial if one wants to better understand the divisive nature of the famine and its uneven impact.

The Great Famine was an event that pitted Irish people of all sorts against one another. When examining the accounts which mention landlords, it is evident that numerous landlords often turned their backs on their tenants in order to save themselves. While informants within these accounts often fail to account for the external pressures which the landlords faced, they explain the ways in which landlords dealt with these pressures. In one particular account, an informant describes his hometown of Mountcoal, County Kerry:

About a century ago, Mountcoal was very thickly populated and about ninety years ago the landlord evicted eighty families and took over their land to himself. That was a very sorrowful day in Mountcoal as my Grandmother told me. Their cries were heard miles away when they were ordered out of their little homes.29

When standing alone, accounts such as these reveal the complexity of the relationship between history and memory. Upon first glance, the landlord is to blame for evicting people who were helpless and without food. Though with additional evidence, such as Póirtéir’s writings, it is clear that landlords often had to make difficult decisions that resulted in the suffering of others. Other accounts portray landlords, particularly absentee landlords, as especially cruel and greedy peoples:

In the years eighteen forty six and forty seven the Irish were very poor. They had to pay back Rents to the absentee landlords. These cruel landlords lived in the cities of England. They lived lives of luxury and sin. They sent over agents from England to collect these exorbitant rents from the poor tenants. Often and often these agents were even worse than the landlords. If the poor tenants weren't able to pay the rent they were evicted from their homes to die on the roadside or go to the workhouse.30

Landlords were often blamed not only for evicting families but also for being greedy. While this might have been the case for many landlords who had an abundance of wealth and owned multiple estates, many landlords were left with no choice but to help themselves after being heavily taxed by the British government. In one account, landlords were blamed for rejecting grain for the starving masses: “The supply of corn in the district would have been sufficient to feed the people for some time. But it had to be handed over to the landlords as payments for land rents.”31 In all of the accounts mentioned above, landlords are portrayed as selfish individuals who only cared for their own needs. Those who lived in the decades that followed the famine often saw landlords in this way. However, there exist numerous accounts within Póirtéir’s oral history as well as the Schools' Collection that give landlords a more positive place in famine memory.

More than anything, landlords had to be practical. They were faced with enormous financial burdens from both the British government and their tenants who couldn’t afford to pay rents. Though even under extreme pressure, many landlords throughout Ireland sought to help their tenants survive. One informant from County Donegal stated that, “Mr. Atkinson, the landlord, also helped the tenants on his estate and a large boiler was put up for making porridge beside the old linen mill in Cavangarden plantation; and porridge was given out free to the tenants.”32 Accounts such as this one stress the importance of physical resources during the time of the famine. It is evident that there were in fact landlords that did much for their tenants. These accounts are helpful in that they paint a picture of landlords that were more than just greedy.

Accounts from Cathal Póirtéir’s book Famine Echoes also shine a similar light on the Irish landlord. One informant from County Kerry highlights how generous and helpful the people were, including landlord, in their district:

The local landlords, I believe, helped the poor in the towns and the farmers certainly helped their poor neighbours. Priests helped everyone. In fact, owing to low rents and a good supply of corn, this area was one of the more fortunate. A landlord named Freeman Dave of Castle Cor, Kanturk, is believed to have given all he had to feed the poor. His property was sold after the famine.33

This account not only praises the local landlords who helped nourish their communities but emphasizes the abundance of corn and generosity that existed within this district. Districts with a surplus of food likely allowed for the people who resided there to have more generous and hopeful spirits than those in other districts. While many districts were affected differently, it is rare to find accounts that are as uplifting as this one. Seamus Reardon of County Cork acknowledged the differences between generous and cruel landlords:

I must say they [the landlords] were not all alike. My Grandfather, God rest his soul, went to pay part of his rent to the landlord, he was a Bantry man. ‘Feed your family first, then give me what you can afford when times get better,’ he told him. So when times improved there was two years rent due on a majority of the small farms and very little hope of paying it later. This was a serious matter for the poor landlords. The rich landlords could afford to lose a little.34

Accounts such as these are also rare. From Reardon’s first statement, he is clearly aware of the fact that landlords have a negative place in Ireland’s memory. Telling a story which has been passed down from his grandfather offers a valuable perspective of the famine that cannot be found elsewhere. This account also demonstrates the differences between landlords who were wealthy and those who were impacted greatly by the loss of rents. It is apparent that there were in fact wealthy landlords who were able to mitigate the pain and suffering felt by many, though there were few that did so. It is significant that the informant also acknowledges that for poor landlords, offering help to those who were less fortunate, faced serious difficulties. This emphasis proves that even in the worst of times, people were generous and did what they could to ensure the survival of those who lived in their communities. Even with these accounts, landlords were remembered extraordinarily selfish and evil. More accounts within the Schools' Collection blame Irish landlords for their cruel and unjust behavior than those that praise their efforts. ccounts from the collection overwhelmingly place the blame on all landlords rather than few, due to their overall lack of attentiveness and care towards the crisis and the people who suffered. In this way, dominant popular memory fails to acknowledge perspectives that shine a positive light on the Irish landlord. The widespread nature of negative perspectives could perhaps mean that most landlords were as selfish as described, though it is difficult to discern.

While many landlords turned their backs against their tenants, accounts from the School’s Collection showcase the variety of experience that existed during the Great Famine. While many landlords were indeed corrupt, there also existed landlords who helped alleviate suffering during the famine days. These accounts not only showcase the variety of experience during the famine but highlight a problem with memory, which is that those in the present often look to blame a specific group in the past for most of the impact of a particular event. By looking at the collective memory of Ireland in the 1930s and 1940s, it is clear that landlords were both moral and immoral actors.

The British Government and Relief in the Form of Food

As with Irish landlords, the British government took much of the blame for the direct impact that the famine had on all of Ireland. Numerous accounts from the Schools' Collection mention the various ways in which the British government failed to relieve Ireland of the destitution that took place during the Great Famine. In many cases, informants often criticize not only the government itself but its mention of specific failures in providing adequate relief. Numerous accounts precisely describe the ways in which districts received aid, and some accounts differ in their description of aid. Others dismiss the British government entirely. These perspectives not only portray the divisiveness of the famine, but provide insights into the types of relief provided and the ways in which everyday people survived.

Relief came in many forms, though one of the most effective relief schemes was the distribution of food to the poor and destitute. The main food that was used was Indian meal, which was made from whole maize grain.35 While this meal kept Ireland’s populations from starving to death, it was unsuitable for a number of reasons. The meal was not only very hard and had to be chopped in steel mills before being ground, but required pre-soaking and long boiling to make it properly digestible.36 Those who were on the brink of death or had traveled long distances did not have the time to properly prepare the meal, and therefore suffered the severe gastrointestinal consequences that came with eating it raw. Additionally, in February of 1847, the Temporary Relief Act came into effect, which meant that soup kitchens became the main source of relief in Ireland.37 While these schemes provided sustenance to Ireland at a time of dire need, relief schemes are often seen as short-lived and insufficient. In the generations that followed the famine, people remembered these efforts as failures, and justifiably so. This is evident in numerous accounts found in the Schools' Collection; accounts that often speak of aid also detail the ways in which Britain failed to administer aid to different districts and regions throughout Ireland. While it is difficult to discern the historical accuracy of each account, what is certain is that aid was distributed unfairly and many of those who controlled the distribution of aid were corrupt. Relief schemes were very complex and expensive, so much so that the British government decided to bring them to an end after just four years.38 They were complex in that those who had control (primarily wealthy persons who held land) administered aid to those whom they favored and who were in better positions to pay their rents.39 While these acts of corruption and unfairness were abundant, there were also accounts that recognized relief schemes as beneficial. What emerges from these accounts are contrasting views of relief schemes. While many people benefited from relief schemes, there were those who also suffered due to their absence.

Numerous accounts found within the Schools' Collection either partially or completely blame the British government for their failures to provide adequate relief to the state of Ireland. While many of these accounts often lack historical perspective, it is evident that the British and their failures continued to live on in the minds of those who lived nearly one hundred years after the famine. One account which speaks very generally about the famine states that: “There was plenty grain in the country such as wheat, oats, and barley, this food the English took away in order to starve the Irish.”40 While the informant is correct in that there was a surplus of grains produced by the Irish prior to and during the years of the famine, they fail to acknowledge that these grains were paid as rent money to Irish landlords, who then had to pay the British government. The claim in which the informant is making is partially accurate, though it attempts to simplify the causes and effects of the famine in a way that doesn’t portray history accurately. His claim that the English took away Ireland’s food in order to starve its peoples is not only too general, but it provides no additional information about relief schemes or other types of aid. In addition to the statement above, the informant also shares a poem which is written about the famine times:

Not Germany, not Austria, not Russia, France nor Spain,

That robbed and rivied this land of ours

That forced her galley chain

But England, oh! the wiley word,

That crafty treacherous foe.

'Twas England robbed our Motherland,

'Twas England laid her low.41

Those who lived in the decades after the famine attempted to make sense of the event by casting certain people in a negative light. While they are justified in doing so, it is these types of accounts that tend to make scholars skeptical of approaching folklore and memory. The oversimplification of events by no means enriches our understanding of history, though it reveals to us a great deal about memory itself.

While numerous accounts attempt to explain the causes, events, and effects of the famine in an oversimplified manner, many criticized Britain’s efforts with more precision. Within these accounts, one can find many instances where relief had arrived far too late. In others, there is evidence of no relief arriving in any form. One informant who criticized Britain’s relief efforts was Julia Sheehan: “When the blight came the stalks got quite black and the people knew nothing about spraying so their crop failed completely. Several people failed and died in the district. The government then came to the reserve and gave them a very little relief of Indian meal to make porridge.”42 When this account was given, Sheehan was seventy-one years of age, meaning that she likely got this story from her father or grandfather who experienced the impact of the famine directly. She notes that the British government provided relief in her district, though it is evident that the relief was far too little to prevent people from dying. One informant from County Donegal also spoke of relief that reached his district: “During these times certain men came and sold a sort of meal as a food and in other places people got some relief from the government. A great sickness followed the hunger called ‘Cholera’, and thousands of people died.”43 While relief did reach certain districts and prevented people from dying of starvation, others died of diseases such as cholera and typhoid, due to being malnourished. While the informant does not criticize Britain’s efforts, he provides us with evidence which proves that relief was not effective at times. An account from an informant named Pat Mulhern further reveals the issues of malnutrition that came along with the famine: “In this district the people suffered more after the famine than they did during it from a disease called cholera.”44 Even though relief reached many districts, it is clear that the Indian meal which Britain provided did not solve Ireland’s problem of malnutrition. Many accounts also exist that tell stories of those who received aid far too late: “Government relief reached this district. Meal was distributed at Farranfore. A story is told of a man who lived in a cabin on the farm now owned by Mick O'Sullivan, bragg. He was starving and set out for Farranfore where he expected some meal. He got the meal but when he was nearly home he dropped dead by the roadside.”45 Accounts such as these are abundant as those who lived in districts which didn’t receive aid had to travel far distances in order to attain food. Many who were able to obtain meals weren’t properly nourished, and ended up perishing despite having attained relief. John Dorrian, an informant from County Donegal provides another account about the starved travelers: “There were people living in Legan who used to give out relief stirabout which the Government gave them. The hungry used to come from far away to get a measure of this stirabout.”46 This particular account provides evidence that there were in fact districts that never received aid. While many districts did receive relief in the form of Indian meal, the people within those districts also witnessed many dead on the side of the road, suffering from malnutrition and disease.

Though the British government is often villainized in famine memory, many accounts exist that acknowledge the significance of relief schemes. One account makes note of the boilers that were placed in towns during the famine era: “There were boilers erected here and there about the country, and there were people there for the purpose of boiling the yellow meal, and sharing it to the people in pints and quarts.”47 While this might have not been the most effective way of providing meal, people traveled far distances in order to collect it, despite it being frowned upon in many districts. The numerous people who did eat the meal were far better off than those who resided in districts where relief wasn’t as prominent. One informant tells a story which he heard from his grandmother who survived because of local relief efforts: “The late Mrs. Adair's Father who lived in Glenveagh Castle, about four miles from this school, brought over a ship load of Indian meal from Scotland. It was sold to the people at a very low price. My Grandmother, Mary Jane Buchanan, got it, and was very glad to have it, to support her family of seven children.”48 Another source commends the government for providing assistance to the Irish people:

Many of the people died from hunger and many would have died were it not for the assistance that came from the government at the time. The assistance consisted of porridge which was made in Carrigart, under the Supervision of a local Committee. A noggin of porridge was handed out to each person every day, this assistance continued from the 1st of October until July of the following year.49

It is evident that while many accounts often dismiss the British government as cruel and greedy, many local relief efforts allowed for people to survive. Though more often than not, Indian meal wasn’t suitable for the Irish people, especially when undercooked and served in small portions. Additionally, local committees remained corrupt and often distributed aid unevenly among peoples. This is likely why relief efforts in the form of Indian meal are regarded as failed, because even though there were some instances where people received nourishment, many people continued to die day after day due to being malnourished.

While relief efforts and public works often have a negative place in the memory of those who lived in the decades after the famine, it is clear that many relief schemes were successful in keeping the Irish alive. While relief in the form of food proved to be partially successful depending on the district in which one resided, relief in the form of public works has a generally more positive place in Irish memory. While public works were not limited to a particular region, I have found a number of sources from Counties Donegal and Kerry that commend local relief efforts such as bridge building, road building, and bog clearing. Mr. John Mannix describes in great detail one of the relief schemes put in place by the British government:

In the year 1846 the Government instituted Relief Schemes. They gave them roads to make through bogs. They got two roads in this district one leading from Castlehill to Maol and another through Glournawadda. The people worked for two pence a day. The food they had was five or six potatoes which they took in their pockets. They had to work from dark until dark.50

This account provides evidence that relief schemes were in fact successful in that they provided men with both food and pay. Though these jobs were grueling and long, they kept people from perishing. Another account showcases how valuable these jobs were to the public: “During the famine a road was started at Tiernaleague and it was to finish at Malin Town. Lots of people wanted to get a job there and the pay was sixpence a week.”51 Public works not only provided people with sustenance but allowed them to work and regain a sense of normalcy in their lives. People were paid from a range of two to eight pence, depending on their district and the job that they were working on. While the pay was little, it helped the people who needed it most, in addition to Indian meal and stirabouts.

It is certain that while relief schemes helped many within Ireland survive during the famine era, that Britain and its government failed to relieve the Irish people of their sufferings. Numerous accounts commend the relief efforts of the government, though there exist far more that view the various relief schemes as failures. This is largely due to the place that Britain holds in popular famine memory, though by examining the accounts from the Schools' Collection, it is evident that their efforts were simply not enough. It is also significant that through these accounts, one is able to see just how divisive the famine was. Receiving aid was sometimes a matter of status, and sometimes a matter of luck. It was spread across numerous districts, though rarely distributed fairly. While those who lived in the decades following the famine often criticized the British government and relief schemes altogether, evidence suggests that relief schemes were simultaneously efficient and ineffective. They were efficient in that they helped sustain Ireland during a time of crisis, and ineffective in that relief in the form of Indian meal was unfairly distributed and at times non-existent depending on where one resided.

Additionally, many people continued to remain undernourished despite receiving grain. Popular memory within Ireland continues to blame Britain for the impact of the famine, though if one’s goal is to gain a more comprehensive view of the Great Famine, it is essential that historians critically examine accounts of folklore and see for themselves the variety of experience recorded in primary narrative accounts.

Class Differences

One of the main points of this paper is to argue about the ways in which the Great Famine was divisive and uneven. Having examined the accounts from the Schools' Collection and from Cathal Póirtéir’s book Famine Echoes, I have outlined how people’s experiences have differed from district to district, and how one’s experience could be affected by external factors such as relief, landlords, and religion. Though the simple truth is that while people’s experiences differed, each and every person was directly or indirectly affected by hunger. eople of all socioeconomic levels were affected by the famine, not just those who were cottiers. Though when the famine struck, poorer individuals and families often had no way of attaining food. The famine’s impact had been so severe that people often turned against one another and committed numerous crimes against people within their own district, such as fellow neighbors, landowners, and farmers. Those who were wealthier and had additional foodstuffs had to fight to protect what was theirs. While many accounts tell stories of generosity and kindness, there exist far more accounts that portray a famine which was divisive at its core. Popular memory suggests that Ireland suffered collectively, though the suffering which took place pitted individuals of differing socioeconomic classes against one another.

Those who suffered greatest were those who solely relied on the potato. Numerous accounts within the Schools' Collection refer to these ones as the “labouring class,” though others simply describe those less fortunate as “poor.” These accounts are not only abundant but include various details as to how people with no food survived. Oftentimes, poorer people turned to theft as a way to combat hunger and feed their families. Crime rates rose so high that wealthy farmers and landowners had to adopt new ways of defending their crops and foodstuffs in order to keep themselves fed. Because relief efforts were either non-existent or delayed in many districts, issues relating to hunger, malnutrition, and disease became increasingly worse as time progressed. As food became scarcer, people felt justified in their wrongdoings.

Additionally, the malnutrition of Ireland’s populations allowed for people to become susceptible to diseases such as typhoid and dysentery. As more people developed fatal illnesses, bodies remained scattered throughout the lands. Due to the rapid spread of disease, people often avoided the deceased as much as they could. The spread of disease, which particularly affected poorer peoples, allowed for the famine to become increasingly divisive. There are even accounts that detail the ways in which people of differing socioeconomic classes were buried. Those who died of malnutrition or disease were not only found in their homes but on the roadside and in other public places. While wealthier families could afford to properly bury their loved ones, poorer people either left the dead alone or buried them with a reusable casket which had an opening on the bottom side. Other times, poorer families who died in their homes would be buried together by having their homes tumbled onto them, as many people were weary of coming into contact with bodies that carried fatal diseases. People were either afraid of contracting disease or too weak themselves to carry the deceased to a proper burial site. Despite these realities, there are also many accounts that tell tales of generosity and kindness. People throughout Ireland made great efforts to help one another, whether that meant giving food away to those less fortunate or helping one another bury their loved ones. While accounts of generosity and collective suffering exist, evidence found in both the Schools' Collection and in Famine Echoes presents a picture of the famine that contrasts popular memory within Ireland.

By examining accounts from the Schools' Collection, it is evident that survival was the minds of each and every person who had been severely affected by the blight of 1845. Some of the ways in which people survived were by foraging, begging, or stealing from others. People who foraged were ones who had solely depended on potatoes and had no excess supply of foodstuffs. In County Kerry, accounts that mention foraging are more abundant than those from County Donegal: “The labouring class were not so lucky, they had neither turnips nor milk. Their food consisted of cabbage stamps, nettles or any green herbs they could lay hands on.”52 Another account highlights how scarce food was during the famine times: “The people of this district were stricken with despair. They had neither food nor money to buy it. Raw turnips, weeds, sea weeds, nettles, and dock leaves were commonly eaten in this district.”53 From these two accounts, it is apparent that there were in fact people who had been more fortunate. Wealthier households either had money which could hold them over for quite some time, or additional assets such as livestock and other crops which weren’t affected by the blight. While there exist accounts of wealthier individuals attempting to help those around them, there simply wasn’t enough food to go around. This particular story about a man in County Kerry highlights the degree to which people suffered:

When people had to be passing a certain cabin, they usedhear an old man complain - Ó; an t-ocras, but after a few days, the complaint ceased, for the poor man had died. Probably he was the last of his family. No one was in a position to help him, for they were all practically as poor as himself, and they were all awaiting the same fate.54

The accounts above not only provide readers with insights into how immense the famine’s impact was on people who belonged to a lower socioeconomic class but answers the question of why people often turned to theft and begging as a means of survival. People had simply run out of options. It seems as if in some districts, conditions were so bad that if one didn’t commit theft, they would be facing the same fate of those who lay dead on the side of the road. Some people turned to theft because they had run out of stamina and the small amounts of food found in the wilderness were often inadequate. While many found foraging to be a successful survival tactic, especially those who lived in districts that were near the sea, these methods only sustained people temporarily. As mentioned previously, foraging in coastal regions could also be dangerous, as many people did not understand how to properly cook seafood, which would worsen the condition of those in search of food. As people’s condition worsened over time, their methods of attaining food became more unlawful.

Theft was one of the most common survival strategies during the time of the famine, as relief was either non-existent or insufficient in many districts. Accounts from the Schools' Collection showcase the ways in which people risked their lives in order to attain food. While people were known to seek out livestock and other crops which belonged to farmers and landowners, the food that was stolen most were turnips. One account illustrates how severe the consequences were for stealing someone else’s crops:

The people were very glad to work for two pence a day at that time and work hard for it. In the time of the famine the people were so hungry that one man stole a turnip out of a garden and the owner saw him and shot him on account of stealing the turnip.55

This account makes clear that relief often came to towns in the form of manual labor, which arguably did sustain populations during the famine times. It also calls attention to the fact that there were those who stole, which suggests that either there weren't enough jobs for people or that the Indian meal being supplied in towns was unsatisfactory for many. Additionally, the consequence of stealing, especially during the famine times, was death. This was because farmers who had excess yields likely needed to protect the food in order for their own families to survive. Mr. John Rahilly, aged 81, gives an account that details the ways in which farmers protected themselves from thievery: “For years after the farmers used have to stay up by night, minding their gardens for fear the potatoes would be stolen.”56 While people often felt threatened by thieves and were willing to kill in order to protect themselves and their foodstuffs, there were also farmers and wealthier individuals who felt compelled to give as much as they could. Though in many cases, people were not able to do so. One account given by Daniel Scannel, aged 79, makes this reality clear: “Farmers who were lucky enough to have some cabbage had to guard it as people went roaming around searching for food and the farmer could not afford to give them anything or he would starve himself.”57 Accounts from the Schools' Collection, and especially those from County Kerry, portray the famine as a divisive and uneven period, as people often had to fend for themselves in times of need and were willing to go to any lengths to keep themselves from meeting the same fate as those around them. Though in contrast, accounts from County Donegal provide much more detail about the generosity that existed during the famine times.

While thieves were abundant in many different counties, beggars were just as prevalent and were often supplied with food from those who could afford to freely give. One informant from County Donegal gives an account about a generous man who supplied local people who were in need: “During the short time this district had no supplies the people would have suffered terribly only for a man who lived on the Bundoran road near Finner. This man had plenty of Indian meal and he distributed it among the people. This man’s name is now forgotten but he was a protestant.”58 Another account tells the story of a man who had an excess supply of corn: “There is a woman living in Tubber named Duffy whose father was alive during the famine.When the famine began he had a great big field of corn which he got, made into oatmeal. He supplied many of his neighbours with this meal.”59

These two accounts make it clear that there were in fact wealthier individuals who supplied poorer people with food. In fact, numerous accounts from County Donegal emphasize the surplus of oatmeal that farmers possessed in certain districts. It is also certain that in areas where generosity was more prevalent, that theft and starvation were less common. Though this doesn’t mean that wealthier people were exempt from hunger, death and malnutrition. One informant named John Moriarty, aged 74, gives an account that indicates the struggles of those who had more than the average laborer:

In the year 1846 the blight came on the potato crop early in July. On account of this the potatoes remained very small. Although they were small many people did not die this year. They bought the food they required with some money they had spared. The blight of the second year caused the great Famine because the people had no reserve of money to tide them over this year.60

This account suggests that while wealthier individuals and families did have money in order to survive, that conditions for all people, regardless of one’s socioeconomic status, worsened as time progressed. One wealthier informant shares his rememberings of the famine:

I was eight years old when the famine came. Around this place there wasn't as much scarcity. I remember my father say he saw a big crowd in town one day looking for food and for work. The potatoes were bad in a lot of places and were small. The people had a share of work here and there and the Bishop and clergy as well as the gentry did their best, but all the same the Workhouse in Killarney was full of people young and old. One day I was in town with my father I saw a man coming up the street very slowly and feebly. All of a sudden he staggered and fell. He was helped into a house but after an hour or so I heard he was dead and that it was hunger was the cause of his death.61

By sharing this story, informant John Kelliher provides us with an alternative perspective of the famine. While accounts such as this one are rare, they provide historians with evidence that the impact of the famine was in fact uneven, as people’s experiences differed from region to region. In his experience, there wasn’t much scarcity, though he acknowledges the people in his own district who were desperate for food and work. Additionally, Kelliher provides us with a story about a time when he saw a man stumble to the ground and die from hunger in his very own town. It is evident that those who were wealthy were in many ways distanced from the true impact of the famine, as many did not understand how severe and traumatic the experiences of poorer individuals were.

While it is evident that those who belonged to a lower socioeconomic class often resorted to theft and begging as a way to survive, it is also true that poorer people were more susceptible to life-threatening diseases such as dysentery and typhoid, as those without food during the famine were weak and malnourished. Even with the presence of relief in the form of Indian meal, people’s nutritional needs were not being met. Furthermore, people often had to travel far distances in order to attain the meal or other foods, which is why numerous accounts describe the bodies that laid dead on the roadside. Sickness and death had affected the entirety of Ireland, as even those who were wealthier could not escape the impact that disease brought to various counties. It is evident in accounts from the Schools' Collection that disease spread more rapidly at sites such as workhouses, relief centers, and poorer neighborhoods. While many accounts blame hunger as the main cause of death, many of those without food were simply malnourished. For many who were poor, dying from disease was inevitable and more likely than starvation. One account highlights the physical condition of the laboring class: “When the canal was being made poor men and women used work there drawing stones on their backs at fourpence per day. In the evening they used be so weak that they used sit down by the roadside and die.”62 While little information is provided in this account, it is evident that those who worked for small amounts of pay or food were malnourished and did not have the physical strength necessary to survive. It also indicates that relief in the form of food was not adequately provided to people during the famine times. Relief schemes were created in order to sustain the public, though people continued to die despite their growing presence. An informant by the name of Mrs. Peggy Nunan tells a story about a woman who once lived in her district:

There was an old woman called Peg Hoare living in Ardfert twenty or thirty years ago. She was married to a man called Divane. When the famine came they had to go begging. The husband got a disease called cholera. Peg got some meal in a house and she made some gruel out of the meal for him. When she came out of the house he was dead. No one would take the corpse to a graveyard because the disease was contagious.63

Many accounts tell stories about past individuals that lived during the famine times, though this particular story about the death of Divane, Mrs. Hoare’s husband reveals the relatedness of malnutrition and disease. Additionally, this account reveals the desperation that many poorer people were in. Those who had nothing had to travel throughout their district or even beyond county lines in order to attain food, and for those who were already weak and malnourished, it was unlikely that they would survive.

Those who witnessed death were wary of coming into contact with the deceased, as they were aware of the diseases that many carried due to malnutrition. Due to the prevalence of disease, those who died were often left on the side of the road or had their house tumbled onto them, as those who lived were not only wary of disease but were physically unable to carry the deceased to a proper burial site. Additionally, money was scarce, which meant that many people could not afford to bury their loved ones properly . Death was so frequent, that the less fortunate designed a coffin that had an opening on the bottom side, which meant that it could be reused over and over again. An informant by the name of T O’Shea, aged 84, shares the harrowing details of what poorer individuals had to do when it came to burying their loved ones:

Then it was another impossibility to provide a coffin for each corpse, so somebody invented a coffin, the bottom of which, could be opened by means of hinges. When a corpse was taken to be buried, the coffin was placed over the grave, the hinges were undone, and the remains dropped into the grave. In this way, the same coffin was used over and over again. Very often too, when whole families died in their homes, the neighbours gathered and simply threw the little cabin on top of them. They never had any other burial. Their little homes became their tomb.64

This account not only gives details as to how poorer peoples dealt with death on a consistent basis but showcases the horrifying realities of the famine. People were not only surrounded by death; they had to simultaneously contemplate the end of their own existence. Another account that refers to the prevalence of sickness and death provides an important detail about people of differing socioeconomic classes: “The time of the famine when the people were dying of hunger a disease came on them as well and they were dying by the hundreds. At that time when people were dying so quickly, they were not rich enough to buy a coffin.”65 This account vividly portrays the prevalence of death during the famine times, as well as the burdens that those less fortunate faced. While very few accounts speak about the ways in which wealthy families dealt with death, it is evident that poorer individuals dealt with death on a more consistent basis than those who could afford to distance themselves from the impact of the famine. By no means were the wealthy excluded from death, malnutrition and disease, though perhaps those who could afford to purchase a coffin and properly bury their loved ones could properly process death. It is apparent that the experiences of the less fortunate were arguably more scarring and traumatic than those of wealthier persons. The accounts found in the Schools' Collection provide an overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of a famine that was divisive and uneven.

The accounts presented above make it clear that the Great Famine was divisive and uneven, as people’s experiences were contingent upon many different factors such as one’s socioeconomic status, the presence and effectiveness of relief schemes, and one’s proximity to wealthier households and generous peoples. Clearly, those who belonged to a lower socioeconomic class felt the impact of the famine more acutely, as they did not have excess foodstuffs and livestock available to them. Additionally, those who were less fortunate were forced to cope with the distressing levels of malnutrition, disease, and death. While relief schemes attempted to alleviate the suffering of the Irish peoples, it is apparent that these attempts were unsuccessful, as many had to travel from town to town to either look for relief, forage for food or steal from others who were more fortunate. As time progressed, people’s immune systems became weaker and many died of fatal diseases which left them dead on the roadside with no one to give them a proper burial. While many wealthier individuals gave what they could to the poor, accounts that mention generosity are rare. It is clear however, that the Great Famine affected individuals and families regardless of their socioeconomic status, though it is also certain that those who were less fortunate faced a much greater impact and were left devastated.

Irish Oral Tradition and Memory

By examining accounts from the Schools' Collection, it is clear that the Great Famine was a period that was overwhelmingly divisive with uneven impact. While this view of the famine is often agreed upon by many scholars and Irish historians, there remains a skepticism of Irish collective memory and folklore in examining the topic. This section of the paper will be dedicated to examining what scholars have to say about folklore and attempts to explain why memory and folklore are essential in our understanding of the Great Famine and historical events at large. The two scholars who have inspired me to write extensively about Ireland and memory are Richard White and Cathal Póirtéir. While historian Richard White is not a scholar of the Irish Famine, his insights about memory are crucially important to my research and have continued to enrich my understanding of memory’s role in historical research. Additionally, Cathal Póirtéir’s scholarship has influenced many scholars to make room for such sources. His research concerning the famine has considerably altered how historians and the general public view Irish folklore and collective memory in relation to the Irish Famine.

Richard White’s book Remembering Ahanagran traces the memory of the author’s mother, Sara Walsh, who was born in Ahanagran, County Kerry in the early twentieth century. While White attempts to tell the story of his mother’s past, he comes to realize that memory and history have a complicated relationship with one another. In his introduction, White clearly states his views on both history and memory, stating that the two are enemies of one another, and that they both challenge each other in many ways.66 He not only advocates for memory, stating that “there are regions of the past that only memory knows,” but calls historians to accept memory as a guide.67 He stands as an advocate for memory, yet advises historians to remain cautious while navigating such complex terrain, as memory can both enhance our understanding of history and mislead us. As he tells his mother’s story, his historical mind often clashes with her memory, but ultimately, he allows memory to lead him into the past. There is one passage from Remembering Ahanagran that has influenced the entirety of this research: “Memory and identity are too powerful to go unquestioned and too important to be discarded as simply inventions and fabrications. They are the stuff from which we fashion our lives and our stories. History can interrogate these stories; it can complicate them, but it cannot kill them.”68 White notes the uncertainty and discomfort that memory offers, but states that without it we cannot gain a comprehensive understanding of the past. Oftentimes collective memory goes against history; the two approaches compete to accurately depict an event or time period. White argues that memory offers insights that history cannot. By examining the stories of his mother, White’s view of the past is disassembled and reconstructed. History can accurately trace the history of Ahanagran and the people who lived in the small town, though without memory these histories become meaningless and stale.

While Remembering Ahanagran wrestles with both memory and history, Cathal Póirtéir’s Famine Echoes successfully uncovers the many stories of the famine that would otherwise go unheard due to the skepticism of folklore as a source in famine scholarship. While Póirtéir’s work is mainly a collection of primary sources which can be located in the archives of University College Dublin, he supplements these primary accounts with his own historical writings that give necessary historical background to these complex accounts of memory. Póirtéir challenges historians who are unwilling to approach folklore, stating that: “The reluctance of many historians to engage with the evidence of folklore seems to be based on the false premise that the folklore of the famine carries a nationalist interpretation of the causes, events, and the effects of the calamity.”69 Póirtéir makes clear that those who are willing to approach folklore will be pleasantly surprised to find various kinds of interpretations and viewpoints of the famine. While Póirtéir is a firm believer in traditional approaches to historical research and writing, he defends folklore as a reliable and valuable source.

There are many reasons as to why scholars are skeptical of folklore, though the most prevalent problem concerns its reliability. Within the memories of those who lived in the decades following the famine there remain biases, differing emphases, and stories that over exaggerate certain aspects of a historical figure or event. Though scholars like Cathal Póirtéir and Richard White are aware of the problems that arise with memory, and recognize that one of the largest challenges that faces historians is the ability to separate historical material from material that serves other functions.70 While much of the material found in accounts of memory is historically valuable, folktales, legends, anecdotes, and poetry have allowed for the people of Ireland to process the harsh realities that took place and helped people make sense of what had happened. It is also important to note the ways in which these stories have been passed down from generation to generation. Póirtéir writes extensively about the rich tradition of storytelling in Ireland, and highlights the incredible memory of local storytellers and other members of local communities who saw to it that the elements of oral tradition would be preserved correctly.71 He also makes clear that whenever oral tradition did depart from historical fact, that these traditions continued to maintain a functional value to communities within Ireland, such as reinforcing the cultural norms or ideals of the community.72 While it is impossible to fully comprehend the value of these oral traditions, it is certain that memory offers historians and scholars a lens into the past that history cannot. If scholars are unable to come to terms with Ireland’s deep roots of oral tradition, then the voices of these accounts will forever be buried and our understanding of the Great Famine will remain limited. Póirtéir states it best when he says “I feel that the echoes of those silenced voices which we have in folk memory are the nearest we can get to the experiences of the poor of the 1840s and 50s.”73 Additionally, Richard White’s assessment of his mother’s memories adds an important perspective to the issue:

I am interested in what my mother’s memories are, not what they are not. They are creations, they are making sense; they are a conscious rewriting in the light of the person she has become and continues to become. My history needs to understand such memories, and other constructions of the past as well. History can not afford to dismiss its rivals as simply fabricated or false, or history will weaken its own ability to understand the strange worlds we live in.74

One of the most difficult yet rewarding aspects of examining the collective memory of Ireland’s peoples has been trying to discern the differences between what parts of a source are historically accurate and what parts have been imagined or created. Even after spending countless hours reading and living with the sources themselves, this question still remains the most difficult to answer. With the help of historians Cathal Póirtéir and Richard White, I have been able to argue for the value of folktale and memory as a source, though even after writing extensively about the topic itself, I find myself having more and more questions about how both memory and history relate to one another. More often than not, they are at odds with one another, competing to tell the same story in different ways. What I have learned is this: history and memory will continue to go against one another, though when taken together, a much more comprehensive view of the past emerges. As Richard White makes clear, it is the difficult task of the historian to try and navigate the seemingly complex and endless terrain that is both history and memory taken together. This task, while monumental, is perhaps as rewarding as it is challenging. Historians often try to explain in a linear fashion and as accurately as possible, the events that once took place during a certain time period. Memory is much different than history. Memory is living and breathing; it is constantly changing and adapting to fit the needs of the present time. It brings life to history, though when taken without history it is often misleading and disorienting. Irish historians and other scholars have attempted to wrestle with this catastrophe for centuries, and yet there are still elements of the famine that remain unclear. Many have attempted to explain the causes, events and consequences of the famine, though have remained skeptical of memory, as Ireland has forged a collective memory of the famine that oversimplifies the event itself. Though in examining accounts found in the Schools' Collection, it is evident that even roughly one hundred years after the famine, Ireland was still attempting to make sense of what had happened. The stories found within the collection themselves are not stagnant, rather they are living and breathing accounts that tell meaningful and captivating stories of the past. They often clash with history, though it is essential to accept them as part of history, because if we do not, then our understanding of The Great Famine is insufficient. By uncovering the memories and stories of those whose voices have been silenced, a more holistic understanding of the Great Famine can be achieved.

Conclusion

In “Famine, Trauma, and Memory,” Cormac Ó Gráda criticizes the commemoration efforts of 1995 which attempted to bind Irish women and men together in their remembrance of the Great Famine. President Mary Robinson led these commemorative efforts, arguing that “the famine had defined the Irish people’s ‘will to survive’ and their sense of human vulnerability.”75 Ó Gráda argues against these commemorative efforts, stating that the collective memory voiced in these efforts are in large part artifact or myth.76 Furthermore, he argues that the Great Famine, like all other large catastrophes, was divisive and its impact uneven. During the Great Famine, poverty and death were closely correlated; in the East mortality was low, whereas in the West, 25-35% of entire populations were removed by the famine’s impact.77 Like all famines, Ó Gráda argues, Ireland produced a hierarchy of suffering. While this article convincingly argues against popular memory within Ireland and for the divisiveness and unevenness of the famine, it fails to acknowledge the significance of memory and folklore and urges scholars and others alike to remain skeptical of the material collected by the Irish Folklore Commission during the 1930s and 40s. While Ó Gráda himself doesn’t outright reject folklore, he states that “the long gap between the event and the collection of evidence allowed ample time for confusion, forgetting, and obfuscation.”78 While this contains the sentiments of one historian, it represents a missing piece in famine scholarship, which is trusting and using folklore as evidence to examine Ireland’s past. While Cathal Póirtéir and other scholars have successfully used folklore to examine the Great Famine, it is certain that memory continues to be overlooked and undervalued. Ó Gráda asks an important question about popular memory in “Famine, Trauma and Memory,” which is: “How could such a range of experiences have spawned a common memory?”79 Though rather than looking to Ireland’s rich oral tradition, Ó Gráda looks at quantitative historical analyses which attempt to showcase the divisiveness and unevenness of the famine. Traditional research methods have attempted to answer this question for decades, though they cannot enrich our understanding of the Great Famine as much as primary narrative accounts do. By looking at accounts from the Schools' Collection and from the archives of the Irish Folklore Commission, it is evident that the famine was divisive and its impact was uneven. Though these accounts provide further insights into the range of experiences that people had during the famine. From these accounts it is possible to see the ways in which the impact of the famine differed depending on numerous factors such as where one resided, one’s religion, and one’s socioeconomic status. One’s experience might have also differed depending on factors that were uncontrollable, such as the presence of relief schemes or wealthy and generous individuals within their district. While some of these accounts tend to exaggerate certain aspects of the famine and contain biases, it is the job of the historian to critically navigate the complexities of history and memory.

Collective memory tends to gloss over historical details, though the collective memory of those who lived in the decades following the famine provides historians with an intimate and personal perspective of the famine. Accounts from the Schools' Collection not only showcase the ways in which ordinary people were impacted by the famine but emphasize the lasting impact that the famine had on people’s minds long after the event itself. While various types of folklore were valued and passed on for different reasons, communities within Ireland ensured that transmitted stories adhered to the known facts and forms of tradition.80 As Cathal Póirtéir makes clear, the strength and reliability of oral tradition is recognized by many authorities, as traditional storytellers and tradition bearers made conscious and successful efforts to maintain the integrity of their traditions.81 While this thesis uses the Schools' Collection as evidence to argue for the divisiveness and unevenness of the famine’s impact, it also advocates for the use of memory and folklore in scholarship. Remembering Ireland’s past should not involve a glossing over of historical details and events, though if our goal is to develop a more comprehensive view of the Great Famine, we cannot ignore the numerous voices that have been silenced by quantitative historical analyses and other sources that dismiss the value of Ireland’s rich oral tradition. While memory is often complicated and demanding, it offers historians a lens into Ireland’s past that history alone cannot offer. History and memory will continue to be at odds with one another, though when taken together, a much more comprehensive view of the past emerges.

1. “National Famine Commemoration 2022 « Irish Famine,” accessed November 3, 2022, https://www.irishfamine.ie/blog/2022/05/31/national-famine-commemoration-2022/.
2. Ibid.
3. Cormac Ó Gráda, Famine, Trauma, and Memory.
4. Ibid, 121.
5. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 1.
6. Cormac Ó Gráda, Famine, Trauma, and Memory, 126.
7. “The Schools’ Folklore Collection,” accessed November 3, 2022 https://www.ucd.ie/irishfolklore/en/collections/schoolscollectionduchas/
8. School: Gleanntan, Scairteach and Ghleannaan Ghleanna. Location: Cordal East, Co Kerry. Collector: Eilis Ni Cearmoda. Informant: Mr John Mannix.
9. School: Caislean an Droma, Caislean na Mainge. Location: Castledrum, Co Kerry. Collector: Mrs Katherine O Brien. Informant: Eugene O’ Sullivan, male. Relation: parent.
10. School: Seosamh Noamhtha. Location: Ballyshannon, Co Donegal. Collector: J. P. Walls. Informant: J. Walls. Age 50. Gender unknown.
11. School: Cruit Island. Location: Cruit Island, Co Donegal. Collector: Maire Ni Dhochartaigh. Informant: Aodh O Dhochartaigh, male aged 45.
12. School: Carrowan. Location: Carrowen, Co Donegal. Collector: Annie Clark.
13. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 4. William Torrens, b.1872, Lismonton, Ballintra, Co. Donegal.
14. Ibid., Chapter 4.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid, Chapter 4, Sean O'Beirne, Malin, Inishowen, Co. Donegal.
17. Ibid, Chapter 11.
18. School: Islandanny. Location: Rea, Co Kerry. Collector: Miss O Connor. Informant: Mr O Connor.
19. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 11. Walter Furlong, b.1871, a farmer, Carrigeen, Grange, Rathnure, Co Wexford.
20. Ibid.
21. School: Tiobraid. Location: Tubrid More, Co Kerry. Informant: Mr. James Fennerty.
22. Ibid.
23. School: An Clochar, Baile an Mhuilinn. Location: Miltown, Co Kerry. Collector: Sighle Ni Neill. Informant: Art O Murchadha, male, aged 70.
24. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 13.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. School: An Drom Clochach, Location: Dromclogh, Kerry. Collector: Daniel Lynch. Informant: unknown.
28. School: Na Frasa. Location: Frosses, Co Donegal. Informant: Michael Gallagher, male aged 75. Collector: Mary Kelly.
29. School: Aghadachor. Location: Aghadachor, Co Donegal. Micheal Mc Gettigan, aged 56.
30. School: Cavangarden. Location: Cavangarden, Co Donegal. Informant unknown. Collector: May Carberry.
31. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 13. John D. O’Leary, Lynedaowne, Rathmore, Kerry.
32. Ibid. Seamus Reardon, b. 1873, Boulteen, Eniskeane, Co. Cork.
33. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 9.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid, Stanza II.
37. School: Tuairin Chathail. Location: Tooreencahill, Co Kerry. Collector: Julia Cronin. Informant: Julia Sheehan, age 71.
38. School: Coill-Cheim. Location: Calhame, Co Donegal. Informant: P Mc Closkey.
39. School: Gort na Carraige (Rockfield) Location: Knocknashangan, Co Donegan. Collector: Marty Keegan. Informant: Pat Mulhern, male age 68.
40. School: Currans. Location: Currans, Co Kerry. Informant: Daniel Scannel, aged 79.
41. School: An Cillin. Location: Killin, Co Donegal. Collector: Annie Teresa Boyle. Informant: John Dorrian, male aged 60.
42. School: Tuairin Chathail. Location: Tooreencahill, Co Kerry. Collector: Sheila Sheehan. Informant: Patrick Sheehan.
43. School: Gartan. Location: Gartan, Co Donegal. Collector: Frances Buchanan. Informant: Matthew Buchanan, parent, male, age 64.
44. School: Aghadachor. Location: Aghadachor, Co Donegal. Micheal Mc Gettigan, aged 56.
45. School: Gleanntan, Scairteach an Ghleanna. Location: Cordal East, Co Kerry. Collector: Eilis Ni Cearmoda. Informant: Mr John Mannix.
46. School: Naomh Pádraig, Carn Domhnaigh. Location: Carndonagh, Co Donegal. Collector: Anthony Doherty. Informant: Neal J Doherty, male aged 55.
47. School: Islandanny. Location: Rea, Co Kerry. Collector: Miss O Connor. Informant: Mr O Connor.
48. School: Gleanntan, Scairteach an Ghleanna. Location: Cordal East, Co Kerry. Collector: Eilis Ni Cearmoda. Informant: Mr John Mannix.
49. School: Loch Coiteain. Location: Dromickbane, Co Kerry. Collector and Informant: Unknown.
50. School: Killahan. Location: Killahan, Co Kerry. Informer: Tim Canty, age 50.
51. School: Kilsarcon. Location: Kilsarkan West, Co Kerry. Collector: Han Healy. Informant: Mr. John Rahilly, male, aged 81.
52. School: Currans. Location: Currans, Co Kerry. Informant: Daniel Scannel, aged 79.
53. School: Seosamh Noamhtha. Location: Ballyshannon, Co Donegal. Collector: Noel Rocks. Informant: Mrs. L Slevin.
54. School: Carraig na Heorna. Location: Carricknahorna, Co Donegal. Informant unknown.
55. School: Baile an Oileain. Location: Ballinillane, Co Kerry. Collector: Michael Downey. Informant: John Moriarty, male aged 74.
56. School: Scoil na mBrathar, Traighli. Location: Tralee, Co Kerry. Collector: Hubert Kelly. Informant: Mrs. Margaret Lambe, female aged 79.
57. School: Ard-Fhearta. Ardfert, Co Kerry. Collector: Tommy Nunan. Informant: Mrs. Nunan.
58. School: Loch Coiteain. Location: Dromickbane, Co Kerry. Informant: T. O Shea, aged 84.
59. School: Unknown. Location: Scart, Co Kerry. Informant: Male, Pat Lacy.
60. Richard White, Remembering Ahanagran, Introduction.
61. Ibid.
62. Ibid, 6.
63. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Introduction.
64. Ibid., Chapter 1.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Ibid.
68. Richard White, Remembering Ahanagran, 302.
69. Cormac Ó Gráda, Famine, Trauma, and Memory, 121.
70. Ibid, 122.
71. Ibid, 123.
72. Ibid, 130.
73. Cathal Póirtéir, Famine Echoes, Chapter 1.
74. Ibid.