Is foinse féidearthachtaí í an Ghaeilge

English language version

Is minic a shamhlaítear athbheochanachas na Gaeilge le tréimhse chúng stairiúil amháin idir na 1890í agus na 1920í, tréimhse ar a dtugtar ‘Athbheochan na Gaeilge’. Is den chúngú céanna 'Athbheochan na Gaeilge' a thuiscint mar chéim a bhrostaigh bunú stáit neamhspleách sa bhliain 1922. Cé go bhfuil muintir na hÉireann ag comóradh ‘Deich mBliana na gCuimhneachán’ san am i láthair, tá an iomarca béime ar aon athbheochan amháin seachas ar fheiniméan leathan sin an athbheochanachais. 
 

Sin an argóint a dhéanann an tOllamh le Nua-Ghaeilge in Ollscoil Mhá Nuad, Fionntán de Brún. Deir sé:

“Ceangal ábhartha atá sa Ghaeilge, ceangal a chinntíonn go bhfuil leanúnachas idir an t-am atá thart agus Éire an lae inniu. Tá i bhfad níos mó ná nasc ábhartha i gceist áfach, is meán í trínar féidir breathnú ar an domhan ar bhealach iomlán difriúil. Is féidir leis an Ghaeilge bonn seasmhach a chur fúinn agus muid a athrú ó bhonn ag an am céanna.

Tá an cheist seo ar cheann de na príomhábhair a pléadh i léacht tionscnaimh an Ollaimh de Brún ‘Ag seachaint ‘cith na baoise’ - an Ghaeilge, an tAthbheochanachas agus Stair na nIdéanna’.

Deir sé: “Má tá Gaeilge againn, is féidir linn nasc a dhéanamh ar an bpointe lenár stair féin. Trí ainmneacha Gaeilge a thuiscint fiú – logainmneacha nó sloinnte, nó céad ainmneacha fiú – fuasclaítear eolas dúinn a bheadh ceilte murach an tuiscint sin. Is féidir leis an bhfonn féin – an mhian a thugann spreagadh dúinn eolas ón am atá thart a athbheochan – saoirse a thabhairt agus an duine a athrú ó bhonn. Tugaimid athbheochanas ar an mhian sin agus ba mhinic a tugadh neamhaird uirthi.”

Déanann ‘cith na baoise’, an nath ó theideal léacht an Ollaimh de Brún, tagairt do cheann de na scéalta fáthchiallacha a bhíodh á n-insint ag filí na scol, sainaicme i sochaí na hÉireann a raibh ardmheas orthu ar feadh na gcéadta bliain, go dtí deireadh an 17ú haois.

Mínítear sa scéal gur thug 30 fealsamh rabhadh ag tús an domhain go raibh díle le teacht, díle a chuirfeadh deireadh le ciall agus le réasún. Nuair a fuair na fealsúna amach nár thug aon duine aird ar an rabhadh a thug siad, chuaigh na fealsúna ar foscadh i bpluais. Nuair a tháinig na fealsúna amach as an bpluais, fuair siad amach go raibh an chiall caillte ag gach duine eile toisc go raibh siad amuigh sna ceathanna báistí. Bhí ar na fealsúna cinneadh a dhéanamh ansin, ar cheart dóibh leanúint ar aghaidh agus ‘cith na baoise’ a sheachaint agus an chiall a bhí acu a choinneáil nó ar cheart dóibh seasamh faoin gcéad chith eile agus a bheith cosúil le gach duine eile. 
D’aontaigh na fealsúna nach raibh luach ar bith leis an ngaois a bhí acu agus chinn siad gur cheart dóibh seasamh faoin gcith báistí ionas go mbeidís in ann a bheith cosúil le gach duine eile. I leagan amháin den scéal, dúradh: “Beag díol na cruinne dar gcéill”. Tar éis mheath na mbardscoileanna, rinneadh tagairt don scéal faoin 30 fealsamh i ndán a chum Gairdian Choláiste na nGael sa Róimh, an fealsamh agus an diagaire Proinsiasach Froinsias Ó Maolmhuaidh –  dán a foilsíodh sa bhliain 1677.

Ina dhán, cáineann Ó Maolmhuaidh muintir na hÉireann toisc gur ghéill siad do chith na baoise. Taobhaíonn sé le muintir na hÉireann, idir óg agus aosta, tréigean sin na litearthachta a chur ina cheart agus, ar an gcaoi sin, athrú drámatúil a thabhairt ar a dtodhchaí féin. Mar a mhaígh sé féin: “Fill anosa, a aos mh’anma, nā bī go dian dogharmtha, ’s nach cian ō chathshaoirlios Chuinn, Go mbia an t-athaoibhnios againn.”

Bhí an méid seo le rá ag an Ollamh de Brún: “Meabhraíonn an úsáid a bhain Ó Maolmhaidh as an scéal faoin 30 fealsamh sa dán an rogha a bhí acu agus an rogha atá ag muintir na hÉireann a n-oidhreacht intleachtúil a thabhairt slán.” 
Díríonn an athbheochan léinn agus litearthachta sa Ghaeilge atá molta ag Ó Maolmhaidh ar rogha a dhéanamh, fiú nuair atá sé níos éasca imeacht le sruth an tsaoil, agus a gcinniúint féin a chumadh fiú má théann sé i gcoinne an tsaoil mar atá.
D’iarr Ó Maolmhuaidh ar mhuintir na hÉireann an todhchaí  a athshamhlú trí fhilleadh ar an méid atá tréigthe acu – litearthacht sa Ghaeilge sa chás seo – agus áitíonn de Brún gur cheart dúinn glacadh leis an gcomhairle sin sa lá atá inniu ann.  Maidir le rogha a dhéanamh agus le caomhnú cuí ár gcuid acmhainní intleachtúla agus cultúrtha is ceist í atá níos leithne ná ceist na Gaeilge. Ar an dóigh chéanna, níl in ‘Athbheochan na Gaeilge’ ach sampla amháin de ghluaiseacht athfhillteach stairiúil an athbheochanachais.
 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Irish language revivalism is often reduced to a single, narrow historical period between the early 1890s and 1920s, known as 'The Gaelic Revival.' The Gaelic Revival is, in turn, frequently reduced to its role in hastening the path towards the founding of an independent Irish state in 1922. While Modern Ireland commemorates the 'Decade of Centenaries' there is an undue focus on one specific revival rather than on the broader phenomenon of revivalism itself.

That is the argument of Maynooth University Irish language Professor Fionntán de Brún, who says, “The Irish language represents a material link that ensures continuity between the past and present of Irish experience. However, it is also much more than a material link, it can be a medium for seeing the world in an entirely different way. It is paradoxically grounding and radically transformative at the same time."

This issue is one of the key topics of Professor de Brún’s inaugural lecture, ‘Escaping the 'shower of folly' – the Irish language, Revivalism and the History of Ideas.’

He says: “If we know Irish, we can make an immediate connection with our history. In simply being able to understand Irish names – whether these are place names or surnames, or even first names – that understanding unlocks an otherwise obscure past. But the desire itself – the impulse that makes us want to revive past knowledge – can be profoundly liberating and transformative. This desire is what we call revivalism and it has been often overlooked.”

The phrase ‘shower of folly’ in the title of Professor de Brún’s lecture refers to one of the allegorical stories told by Irish bardic poets, who were a highly respected caste in Irish society for hundreds of years up until the end of the 17^th Century.

The story tells how at the beginning of the world, 30 philosophers warned of an impending deluge that would destroy all reason. Finding that no one would believe their warning, the philosophers took shelter in a cave only to find on emerging again that everyone else had become fools through exposure to the showers of rain.

The philosophers then had to decide if they should continue to avoid the ‘shower of folly’ and preserve their reason, or if they should stand under the next shower of folly and become like everyone else.

Agreeing that their wisdom was now worthless, the philosophers resolved to stand under the rain shower themselves to become like everyone else, saying: “Beag díol na cruinne dar gcéill”, as one iteration of the story has it, translated as ‘the world cares little for our wisdom.’

In the aftermath of the decline of the Bardic schools, the story of the 30 philosophers is invoked in a poem composed by the guardian of the Irish College in Rome, the Franciscan Philosopher and Theologian, Froinsias Ó Maolmhuaidh – published in 1677.

In his poem, Ó Maolmhuaidh chides his fellow countrymen for having submitted to the shower of folly. He urges the young and old of Ireland to reverse their rejection of literacy and by so doing bring about a dramatic change in their own fortune.

He writes: ‘Fill anosa, a aos mh’anma, nā bī go dian dogharmtha, ’s nach cian ō chathshaoirlios Chuinn, Go mbia an t-athaoibhnios againn.”

This we can translate as: ‘Return now, oh people dear to my soul, do not be stubbornly resistant to the call, and it shall not be long until Ireland, will have a second glory.’

Professor de Brún comments: “Ó Maolmhuaidh's use of the story of the 30 philosophers in his poem is to remind us of the choice that was available to them and by analogy, to the people of Ireland, in reclaiming their intellectual inheritance.”

“The revival of learning and literacy in Irish advocated by Ó Maolmhaidh centres on the exercise of choice even when it might be easier to go literally with the flow, and the realisation of an alternative state of affairs even when this seems to go against the prevailing order.”

Ó Maolmhuaidh's call to Irish people to reimagine their future by returning to what had been abandoned – in this case, literacy in the Irish language – is something that de Brún argues should be heeded today. The exercise of choice and the proper care of our own intellectual and cultural resources is an issue which goes far beyond the issue of the Irish language. In the same way, the 'Gaelic Revival' is just one instance in the much broader recurring historical movement of revivalism.