Hybernos Sylvestres: Ireland and the Irish in Polydore Vergil’s Anglica historia (1534) and Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio Britanniaiae, Scotiae, Hyberniae et Orchadum (1548)
Ireland had been of little interest to foreign writers since the publication of Giraldus
Cambrensis’ The History and Topography of Ireland in the twelfth century. However, the first modern descriptions of Ireland were produced in the sixteenth century by two Italian historians. Polydore Vergil’s Anglica historia (1534) and Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio
Britanniaiae, Scotiae, Hyberniae et Orchadum (1548) include original descriptions of Ireland and the Irish. Both representations exemplify many of the characteristics of Renaissance cosmography and ethnography. Thus, the texts are punctuated with references to specific classical antecedents, while classical cosmographical and ethnographical concepts and parameters are utilised to describe the island of Ireland and its inhabitants. However, Vergil and Giovio present two distinct descriptions of Ireland which are notable for their differences rather than their similarities. Moreover, the representations of the Irish people presented by each writer are diametrically opposed: Vergil’s description is from a colonial perspective and negative while Giovio’s is positive; a rare example of a non-colonial ethnographical account of
Irish identity.1 This article will examine the representation of Irish identity in the Anglica historia and the Descriptio Britanniaiae, Scotiae, Hyberniae et Orchadum respectively.2 Firstly, it will briefly contextualise both texts and their authors. Next, it will examine how the classical ethnographic model was utilised in a sixteenth century context, to present conflicting and contrasting representations of the Irish people. Finally, it will analyse Vergil’s use of the classical antithesis between civilised and barbarous languages in the representation of Irish identity presented in the Anglica historia.
1 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 21 2 Here after Descriptio. I
I
Polydore Vergil (c.1470-1555) was born in Urbino and educated at both Padua and Bologna.
He arrived in England in 1502 to assist in the collection of Peter’s pence and commenced research on his magnum opus, the Anglica historia, soon after. Vergil’s reputation as a scholar had already been established through the publication of a collection of adages, the
Prouerbiorum Libellus (1498), and the highly original De Inuentoribus Rerum (1499).3 Both works were popular in continental literary circles in the sixteenth century. Vergil arrived in
England as a writer with continental popularity, of scholarly prestige but in search of royal patronage. The sixteenth century saw a growth in popularity for Italian authored nationalistic, panegyric histories, e.g. Paolo Emili’s history of the French monarchy: De rebus gestis francorum (1539).4 For European kings and magnates of the Renaissance period the history book, combined with the print revolution, was another means to disseminate propaganda.5
Levy notes that ‘much of Henry VII’s foreign policy was concerned with his need to gain
European recognition for his dynasty; a history written in the best and newest style could help, primarily by proving the legitimacy of the new rulers’.6 Thus, the Anglica historia was written primarily to promote the legitimacy of the Tudor monarchy to a continental audience following the War of the Roses.7 Accordingly, Vergil created an English national history which would appeal to continental scholars, i.e. written in the revived classical Latin of the
Renaissance. The influence of the Anglica historia on the reading of English history, in particular the Tudor period, lasted up until the nineteenth century. Moreover, Vergil’s interpretation of fifteenth and sixteenth century history was immortalised in the pages of
3 For an in-depth discussion of Vergil’s literary output and life see Denys Hay, Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952. 4 Fred Jacob Levy, Tudor Historical Thought, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967, p.55; Denys Hay, Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, p.9 5 Denys Hay, Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, p.166 6 Fred Jacob Levy, Tudor Historical Thought, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967, p.55 7 Denys Hay, Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, p.4 II Shakespeare who dramatised many of the elements of the Anglica historia’s historical narrative. Thus as Hay notes ‘it might be fair to call the Anglica historia one of the most important histories of England which have ever been produced’.8 In an Irish context the
Anglica historia includes the first modern and original description of the Irish written in
Renaissance Latin.9 Moreover, it was the first description of Irish identity to be disseminated via the printing press.10 However, the influence of the Anglica historia on representations of
Irish identity is a neglected area of research.11 This article hopes to make a modest contribution to redressing that fact.
Paolo Giovio (1483-1552) was from the Italian city of Como. He studied philosophy at
Pavia and was appointed a lecturer in philosophy at Rome by Leo X. Moreover, Giovio studied medicine at Padova and was the official physician to Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici. However, his primary interest was historical research. Giovio enjoyed the papal patronage of both Leo X and Clement VII. As a result Giovio’s historical output was prolific; he produced papal biographies, histories on various European nations, and a comprehensive survey of Italian history from the period of the Italian wars, the Sui Temporis Historiae Libri (1550-1552).12
However, from 1514 onwards Giovio dedicated himself to the compilation of a contemporary universal world history, i.e. a cosmography. The Descriptio was the first part of this ultimately unfinished undertaking. In contrast to the Anglica historia, the Descriptio was not produced to
8 Ibid., p.ix 9 Unfortunately a discussion of Vergil’s use of classical Latin is beyond the capabilities of this article. However, it is discussed in Denys Hay, Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, pp. 125-130. For a discussion of the use of Latin in Vergil’s description of the Irish see Eric Haywood, ‘La storia dell’Irlanda dell’Anglica historia’, in R. Bacchielli (ed.), Polidoro Virgili e la cultura umanistica europea, Accademia Rafaello, Urbino, pp. 143-163. Moreover, Giovio’s use of Latin is discussed in Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 7-12. 10 Eric Haywood, ‘Brutti Irlandesi? La Prima Descrizione Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, in Secchi Tarugi, L., Disarmonia, bruttezza e bizzarria nel Rinascimento, Franco Cesati Editore, Florence, 1998, p. 175 11 Despite Vergil’s influence on subsequent representations of Irish identity, notably there is no mention of the Anglica historia in Brendan Bradshaw and Andrew Hadfield (et al.), Representing Ireland: literature and the origins of the conflict, 1534-1660, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. See Eric Haywood, ‘Is Ireland Worth Bothering About? Classical Perceptions of Ireland Revisited in Renaissance Italy’ in International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, no. 4, (1996): 475. 12 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 2; Eric Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago, 1981, p. 368 III promote the legitimacy of a political ruler, rather it was created for the ever growing market for cosmographical texts in sixteenth-century Europe.13 It was in this context that Giovio produced his description of Ireland and the Irish.14 The text presents an original, while at times confused description of the island of Ireland and temporarily redefined the sixteenth- century image of the Irish people in continental Europe.15
II
The descriptions of Ireland and the Irish presented by Vergil and Giovio utilised the classical ethnographic model to describe the island and its inhabitants. However, this model was employed for contrasting purposes. Vergil adopted the framework of classical ethnography to create a negative description of the Gaelic Irish. Conversely, Giovio utilised the classical ethnographical model to provide a positive representation of the Irish people, i.e. the image of the noble savage, an idea expressed in the classical ethnographic tradition.16 In contrast to the eye-witness ethnographical texts produced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, e.g. Adam of
Bremen’s depiction of the Scandinavians and Slavs in his book Gesta Hammaburgensis
Ecclesias Pontificum (1070) and Giraldus Cambrensis’ The History and Topography of Ireland
(1185), neither Vergil nor Giovio had empirical knowledge of Ireland. However, Italian scholars in the Renaissance period had access to rediscovered classical Greek and Roman ethnographical texts and models which could be imitated more closely in the study of a
13 For an in-depth discussion of the Descriptio in a European context see Eric Haywood, ‘Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio Hyberniae: Humanist Chorography or Political Manifesto?’, in Schnur, R., (ed.), Acta. Conventus neo-latini bariensis, Medieval & Renaissance Texts and Studies, Arizona, 1998, pp. 315-322; Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 265-288. 14 Eric Haywood, ‘Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio Hyberniae: Humanist Chorography or Political Manifesto?’, in Schnur, R., (ed.), Acta. Conventus neo-latini bariensis, Medieval&Renaissance Texts and Studies, Arizona, 1998, p. 321; Cochrane, Eric, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago, 1981, p. 368 15 Eric Haywood, ‘Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio Hyberniae: Humanist Chorography or Political Manifesto?’, in Schnur, R., (ed.), Acta. Conventus neo-latini bariensis, Medieval&Renaissance Texts and Studies, Arizona, 1998, p. 322 16 For a discussion of the concept of the noble savage in classical and twelfth-century ethnographical texts see Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982, pp.171-173 ; W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 376-377; and n. 65 below. IV foreign people.17 Classical ethnography was utilised to describe the peoples of remote lands outside of the Greek/Roman world. The essential components of the classical ethnographical framework were a description of the physical geography of the country described, i.e. the situs; the history and nature of its inhabitants, i.e. the mores; climatic factors and the political, social and military organisation of the peoples described.18 The descriptions of the Irish people presented in both the Anglica historia and the Descriptio conform to this classical model. Moreover, classical ethnography juxtaposed the Greek/Roman world with foreign peoples thus creating a paradigm of the barbarian. In classical ethnographical literature
‘remote lands could be either repositories of ancient wisdom and honesty or the home of primal stupidity’.19 Primarily, the dichotomy between civiliores and sylvestres was utilised as a pretext for colonialism and the subjugation of foreign peoples echoing Aristotle’s thesis that humanity is divided in two between the masters and the slaves.20 According to the classical ethnographical model the main distinctions between civilized and barbarous societies were economic, political and cultural/linguistic differences.21
In the classical paradigm of the barbarian the economic distinction between sedentary culture and pastoralism is a fundamental dichotomy.22 This point is exemplified in Julius
Caesar’s description of the Britons as barbarous because they are pastoral people who ‘live off milk and cattle’.23 The Anglica historia utilises the antithesis between pastoralism and settled agriculture to present a negative description of the Irish people. This point is illustrated in
Vergil’s description of the eating habits of the Gaelic Irish: ‘The Irish are not devoted to
17 Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982, p. 175 18 John Barry, ‘Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis’, Renaissance Studies 18, no.1 (2004): 3 19 J. F. Kileen, ‘Ireland in the Greek and Roman writers’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 76C (1976): 207- 215 20 Ernest Barker, (trans), The Politics of Aristotle, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946, pp. 9-11 21 W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 376-407 22 Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982, p. 159 23 Stanley A. Handford, (trans.) Julius Caesar: The Conquest of Gaul, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1960, p. 69 V agriculture…they do not eat much grain, but for the most part live on milk and meat.’24 In addition, pastoralism is associated with barbarity in accordance with the classical ethnographical paradigm: ‘Those Irish are called wild who live nearly the manner of beasts.’25
However, Vergil does acknowledge the existence of agriculture amongst the Gaelic Irish even if it is of a limited nature: ‘They do not greatly cultivate agriculture.’26 Moreover, in his description of Irish climatic conditions, Vergil remarks upon the fertility and fecundity of Irish soil: ‘The temperate weather is wonderful, and the fertility of the land is remarkable.’27
However, it is noted that the Irish ‘delight in not working’.28 Arguably the Anglica historia’s representation of the Gaelic Irish as a pastoral people is an attempt to advertise the potential of Ireland’s natural resources and to legitimise the position of the Tudor monarchy in Ireland:
Ireland is a land of great potential but populated by savages. Thus, it is waiting to be conquered and exploited.
The representation of the Gaelic Irish in the Anglica historia is clearly influenced by the writing of Giraldus Cambrensis. Many twelfth-century ethnographical descriptions of foreign peoples highlighted their inability to exploit the potential natural resources of their lands.29
This was used as a justification for colonisation; the classical equivalent of the white man’s burden. In an Irish context this point is represented in the writing of Giraldus. In The History and Topography of Ireland Giraldus highlights the endurance of pastoralism and the laziness of the Irish: the Irish are a barbarous and lazy people without culture who ‘have not progressed at all from the primitive habits of pastoral living’.30 Moreover, he notes the preponderance of pastoralism as opposed to settled agriculture amongst the native Irish and
24 Dana F. Sutton, ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-12-01]
‘naturally very fertile and productive’31 but that the ‘wealth of the soil is lost…because there are no farmers to cultivate even the best land’.32 Clearly Giraldus is promoting the need for new management of Ireland’s agricultural potential. Vergil transplants this idea into the contemporary world of the Tudor monarchy. The promotion of the potential of Irish agricultural land would take on new significance in the era of the Tudor plantations of the sixteenth century.33
Analogous to Vergil, Giovio too highlights the ‘abundance of farmland’ in Ireland and the ‘gentle warmth of its [Ireland’s] soil’.34 In addition, Giovio notes that the Irish ‘absolutely spurn the plough’ and that their diet is a combination of ‘livestock, milk, cheese and honeycombs as well as fish, birdcatching, and hunting’.35 However, in contrast to Vergil,
Giovio presents Irish pastoralism in a positive light. Accordingly, the Irish are presented as a
Spartan people who ‘refuse to sweat for anything but war’ and ‘think almost nothing is worth pursuing except honour’.36 Moreover, Giovio notes that the Irish trade in horses, falcons and various animal skins with continental merchants. However, again he underlines the disinterest of the Irish in economic matters: ‘They set a higher value on military pursuits than profits from trade’37 and are a people ‘uncorrupted by foreign allurements’.38 The Descriptio presents a description of the Irish as a model of barbarian moderation. They are people who choose to reject agricultural life and economic gain through trade, not because they are
31 Katherine Simms, ‘The Norman Invasion and the Gaelic Recovery’, in Foster, R.F. (ed.), Oxford History of Ireland, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 102 32 Ibid., p. 103 33 For a detailed discussion of the Tudor plantations in the sixteenth-century see Nicholas Canny, The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland: A Pattern Established 1565-76, The Harvester Press Ltd, Sussex, 1976, pp. 66-93. 34 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 31 35 Ibid., p. 31 36 Ibid., p. 31 37 Ibid., p. 34 38 Ibid., p. 31 VII unacquainted with the agricultural and economic methods of the ‘civilized’ world, but because they view these activities as lacking in honour. Thus, Giovio documents the economic differences between the barbarian (Irish) and civilised world according to the classical ethnographical framework, but these differences are interpreted in a positive way.
Barbarian moderation was sometimes used by classical writers to criticise the greed and indulgence of civilised society.39 The positive representation of a barbarian people is exemplified in Tacitus’ description of the Germans in Germania
A German is not so easily prevailed upon to plough the land and wait patiently for harvest as to challenge a foe and earn wounds for his reward. He thinks it tame and spiritless to accumulate slowly by the sweat of his brow what can be got quickly by the loss of blood.40
The concept of the ‘noble savage’ uncorrupted by material wealth was utilised by Tacitus to critique the degenerate state of the Roman Empire. Echoing Tacitus, Giovio believed that the civilised world, i.e. Christendom, was in decline due to the mismanagement of its leaders.41
Consequently, in his positive description of the Irish people, Giovio critiqued the nature of civilised European society, i.e. Christian Europe, split into two following the cataclysmic events of the Reformation.
Political centralisation was another essential component of civilised society according to classical ethnographical models. In contrast, the fragmented nature of political life outside of the Greek/Roman world was considered the mark of a barbarian society.42 Moreover, the development of cities and civic institutions was what separated the civis from the barbarian in the classical dichotomous relationship. This concept is exemplified in Cicero’s Pro Sestio.
For which of us gentlemen, does not know the natural course of human history-how there was once a time, before either natural or civil law had been formulated, when men roamed, scattered and dispersed over the country, and had no other possessions
39 Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982, p. 173 40 Harold Mattingly, (trans), Tacitus: The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1948, p. 113 41 Eric Cochrane, Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance, Chicago, 1981, p. 373 42 Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982, p. 163 VIII than just so much as they had been able to seize by strength and violence, or keep at the cost of slaughter or wounds? So then those who at first showed themselves to be the most eminent for merit and wisdom, having perceived the essential teachableness [sic] of human nature, gathered together into one place those who had been scattered abroad, and brought them from that state of savagery to one of justice and humanity. Then things serving for common use, which we call public, associations of men, which were afterwards called states, then continuous series of dwelling-places which we call cities, they enclosed with walls after divine and human law had been introduced.43
Cicero’s anti-primitivism reflects classical culture: political centrality and the development of urban settlements were associated with the progression from barbarous to civil society. Both
Vergil and Giovio represent the political organisation of the Irish people within this classical framework reflecting the influence of classical ideals on sixteenth century thought.
The Anglica historia highlights the political fragmentation of the Gaelic Irish to illustrate and explain their wild nature. This point is illustrated in Vergil’s description of the
Gaelic Irish rulers: ‘This island [Ireland] is possessed and ruled by numerous petty kings… this nation is constantly agitated by seditions, and for this reason is canny at managing battles and other tasks.’44 Vergil attributes the warlike nature and barbarity of the Gaelic Irish to their political fragmentation. Moreover, he notes the advantages of political centralisation over political fragmentation in his description of Henry II’s ‘conquest’ of Ireland in the twelfth century.
Since the island [Ireland] obeyed a number of petty kings and was drawn apart into different factions and movements, nothing else hindered this unconquered nation so that it could offer no resistance but the lack of a common plan for warding off danger form the commonwealth.45
Again in keeping with the classical ethnographical paradigm of the barbarian, the Anglica historia notes the military superiority of civilised society and centralised power over the political fragmentation of the barbarous Gaelic Irish. In contrast to the Gaelic Irish, Vergil
43 Robert Gardner, (trans), Cicero The Speeches: Pro Sestio and In Vatinium, William Heinmann Ltd, London, 1958, p. 161 44 Dana F. Sutton, ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-12-01]
In all Ireland there are two kinds of men…one of these is tamed and civilised. Since they are more tractable and wealthy, merchants of the neighbouring nations on the continent often sail to them to transact business, but they are especially visited by the English.47
The civilised inhabitants of Ireland are wealthy and conduct trade with continental Europe. In contrast, the political fragmentation of the Gaelic Irish is again highlighted as a fundamental cause of their barbarous nature. They are described as a wild, bellicose and fierce people.
The other kind is savage, uncouth, stupid and fierce, and because of their neglect of refinement and boorish manners they are called the wild Irish. They have a large number of petty kings who are constantly waging war against each other. For this reason they surpass the rest of the Irish in their ferocity, and, being most eager for innovation, next to theft and robbery they adore nothing more than uprisings.48
Clearly Vergil utilised the classical ethnographical concept of the barbarian to create a distinction between the civilised English and the barbarian Irish. Again Vergil’s description echoes the canon of English colonial propaganda, i.e. The History and Topography of Ireland. In describing the Irish people Giraldus notes that ‘while men usually progress from the woods to the fields, and from fields to towns and communities of citizens, this people despises agriculture, has little use for the money-making of towns, contemns the rights and privileges
46 Ibid., book xiii 47 Ibid., book xxvi 48 Ibid., book xxvi X of citizenship.’49 They choose to persist in their barbarous life due to laziness and thus have not progressed towards urbanization and the civilization which comes with city life, ‘they think that the greatest pleasure is not to work, and the greatest wealth is to enjoy liberty.’50
Giraldus’ propaganda punctuates Vergil’s representation of the Irish people. The classical ethnographical framework, through the filter of sixteenth-century Italian scholarship, is utilised to legitimise Tudor colonial rule in Ireland.51 Consequently, it is clear that, in the
Anglica historia, Vergil presents the same ideology as Giraldus: an ideology of colonization.
Conforming to the classical ethnographical framework, Giovio too highlights the political fragmentation of Irish society. However, again, in contrast to Vergil, this is presented as a positive attribute of the Irish people. The fragmented political nature of Irish society is equated with liberty. ‘With equanimity, they [the Irish] obey their local kings, nor have they ever let overall sovereignty be given over to the rule of one of them, as though that would be a loss of liberty.’52 Again the Irish are described as a people who practice self-control and this positive attribute permeates through political life. Accordingly, Giovio’s description of Irish political structure emphasises the importance of liberty to the Irish people suggesting an ordered system of egalitarian political rule; a quasi classical democracy similar to the
Athenian model. In addition, the Descriptio presents the Irish political structure as a means to prevent political tyranny: ‘The one thing above all that they take care over is lest someone far stronger than anyone else (and hence, as generally is the case, intolerable), might violently seize the kingship of the island having violently conquered all others.’53 Consequently, the
Descriptio presents the fragmented political state of Ireland not as a product of ignorance of
49 John O’Meara , (trans), Gerald of Wales: The History and Topography of Ireland, Dundalk, 1951; rev.edn., Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, 1982, p. 101 50 Ibid., p. 102 51 Eric Haywood, ‘La Divisa dal Mondo Ultima Irlanda: Ossia la Riscoperta Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 176, (1999): 185 52 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 31 53 Ibid., p. 21 XI the centralised political organisation espoused by classical culture, rather it is presented as a conscious decision made to ensure liberty and prevent tyranny.
The description of the military organisation of a people described is a fundamental component of the classical ethnographic model.54 Moreover, in the classical paradigm the perceived ferocity, belligerence and cruelty of the barbarian is another distinguishing factor between civilised and barbarous peoples, i.e. the furor barbaricus.55 This is illustrated in Julius
Caesar’s description of the bellicosity of the German peoples: ‘They spend all their lives in hunting and warlike pursuits.’56 Again, in keeping with the classical framework, both Vergil and Giovio describe the military organisation of the Irish people.
Vergil presents an anachronistic representation of Irish behaviour in battle. They are described as primitive soldiers who have failed to adapt to modern military techniques and technological advances.
They fight without any armour on their bodies, they rely on courage and strength as a substitute and regard armour as a burden…they ride without saddles…their weapons are the javelin, the sword, the axe, and the stones with which they defend themselves when they have lost other arms.57
The succinctness of Vergil’s description Irish military affairs suggests he was dismissive of the military prowess of the Gaelic Irish. In addition, references to the warlike nature of the Gaelic
Irish punctuate Vergil’s text. These references are utilised to create a negative image of the
Gaelic Irish: they are a people ruled by petty kings leading to constant warfare. This point is illustrated in Vergil’s juxtaposition of Anglo-Irish and Gaelic Irish societies in book XXVI of the
Anglica historia: ‘They [the Gaelic Irish] surpass the rest of the Irish in their ferocity, and, being most eager for innovation; next to theft and robbery they adore nothing more than
54 John Barry, ‘Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis’, Renaissance Studies 18, no.1 (2004): 3 55 W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 391 56 Stanley A. Handford, (trans) Julius Caesar: The Conquest of Gaul, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1960, p. 35 57 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 34 XII uprisings.’58 Thus, in describing the military organisation of the Gaelic Irish, Vergil again reinforces the negative stereotype of the primitive nature of Irish society. Moreover, his description of Irish behaviour in battle is heavily reliant on the description presented in book ninety three of the The History and Topography of Ireland: Giraldus too notes that the Irish use stones in battle but they ride without saddles.59 Consequently, the description of the Gaelic
Irish presented in the Anglica historia suggests that they have not progressed militarily since the twelfth century. Again it is clear that Vergil incorporated twelfth century Anglo-Norman colonial propaganda into his sixteenth century description of the Gaelic Irish.
In contrast to Vergil, Giovio’s description of Irish battle customs is both positive and detailed; it is the most original aspect of Giovio’s ethnographical treatment of the Irish people.60 Accordingly, Giovio provides a detailed account of both the Gaelic Irish foot soldiers, i.e. the galloglasses, and cavalry.61 Moreover, in contrast to Vergil, Giovio notes both the sophistication of the military technology of the Gaelic Irish, i.e. their use of armour, helmets and chain mail, and their prowess in battle. This point is illustrated in Giovio’s description of
Irish knights: ‘A knight is defended by armour and a helmet; he holds a Spanish lance and the reins together in his left hand, and with his right he hurls with great strength a javelin fitted with a leather strap.’62 Analogous to Vergil, Giovio’s representation of the Irish people is punctuated by references to their warlike nature. They are a people who ‘refuse to sweat for anything but war,’63 and who ‘set a higher value on military pursuits than on profits from
58 Dana F. Sutton, ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-12-01]
‘But the galloglass fights with the tenacity of someone who plans not to be defeated by any fear of death but to be killed in an honest footstep.’65 This portrait of the noble Irish savage is personified in the depiction of Conn O’Neill; he is described as a warlike and just leader.
Moreover, his bellicosity is associated with valour and strength. ‘The prince of Ulster Conn
O’Neill exceeds all the rest in great authority, in warlike deeds, and ancient lineage. He is continually at war.’66 Thus, the Descriptio associates war with honour and shows admiration for the military asceticism of the barbarian. Again this illustrates the influence of Tacitus. In
The Life of Cnaeus Julius Agricola (c.98 A.D.), Tacitus attributes the positive attributes of the
Britons to their constant involvement in battle. Moreover, in his critique of the moribund nature of the Roman Empire, Tacitus highlights the lessons to be learned from the warlike
Britons. Conversely peace is associated with weakness of character.
The Britons, however, exhibit more spirit, as being a people whom a long peace has not yet enervated. Indeed we have understood that even the Gauls were once renowned in war; but, after a while, sloth following on ease crept over them, and they lost their courage along with their freedom. This too has happened to the long conquered tribes of Britain; the rest are still what the Gauls once were.67
These ideas are reflected in Giovio’s description of the Irish. His description of the Irish echoes Tacitus’ description of the Britons in the Agricola, highlighting the lessons which the civilised world can learn from peoples on the periphery of the oikoumene. The physical toughness and military prowess of the Irish are presented as positive attributes of their character. Moreover, Giovio’s description of Irish military organisation and their tenacity in battle highlights the military prowess of the Irish. Arguably this description was influenced by
64 Ibid., p. 34 65 Ibid., p. 34 66 Ibid., p. 31 67 Harold Mattingly, (trans), Tacitus: The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin Books Ltd, Middelsex, 1948, p.62 XIV contemporary events. A brave and disciplined catholic army could be valuable potential allies of the papacy against the schismatic Tudor’s in Europe of the Counter Reformation.68
III
The Anglica historia utilised the classical antithesis between civilised and barbarous languages to promote English colonial aspirations in Ireland. Language and speech were distinguishing factors between civilisation and barbarism according to the classical ethnographical framework. The Greek and later Latin languages were synonymous with
Hellenic and Roman culture and imperialism respectively; non Greek/Latin speakers were classed as barbarians.69 This point is illustrated in the words of Plato’s Eleatic Stranger in
Politicus.
Most people in this country separate the Hellenic race from all the rest as one, and to all the other races, which are countless in number and have no relation in blood or language to one another, they give the single name barbarian.70
In classical Roman culture, the Latin language was synonymous with Romanitas, i.e. the culture of the Roman Empire.71 Moreover, the term barbarism was used to describe an error of speech or pronunciation; emphasis was placed on the purity and style of Latin utilised, i.e.
Latinitas. In the Middle-Ages this idea was expanded to include the introduction of foreign terms into the Latin vocabulary, i.e. barbarolexis. These ideas were reasserted by Italian scholars of the studia humanitatis in the Renaissance period.72
68 Jason Harris, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies xxxv, no.139 (2007): 20 69 W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 376-407. 70 E. Almagor, ‘Who is a barbarian? The barbarians in the ethnological and cultural taxonomies of Strabo’, in Dueck, D. & Lindsay, H., (eds.), Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a Kolossourgia, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, p. 42 71 W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 376-407 72 Ibid., p. 401 XV Vergil utilises the classical antithesis between civilised and barbarous languages to express English colonial aspirations in Ireland. Accordingly, the Irish language is described in terms of the classical Greek model of a barbarous tongue, i.e. it is an unintelligible mixture of sounds. ‘They [the Gaelic Irish] all use the same language, which they pronounce like men babbling and groaning.’73 The Irish language, following classical parameters, is barbarous and thus by implication the Irish are a barbarous people. In contrast, Vergil presents a positive description of the English language. It is compared directly to classical Latin: ‘the latter
[English speakers] properly imitate the Latins in speaking only a little between the lips, which produces a pleasant sweet for listeners.’74 Moreover, the English language is compared favourably to the Italian language, i.e. the vernacular of Renaissance Italy and the vernacular considered closest to classical Latin.
Englishmen are tall, with handsome open faces, grey-eyed for the most part. And just as they are very similar to the Italians in the sound of their language, so the build of their bodies and their manners do not greatly differ from theirs.75
The English are described as a Latinized people who resemble the Italians both in speech and manners.76 Thus, in the Anglica historia, Latin is replaced by English in the linguistic dichotomy between civilization and barbarism.
In the juxtaposition of the Anglo Irish and Gaelic Irish presented in the Anglica historia, knowledge of the English language is the primary distinguishing feature between the two cultures, i.e. between civilisation and barbarism.77 ‘And they [the Anglo Irish] easily acquire
English manners and for the most part understand the English language…all of these obey the
73 Dana F. Sutton, ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-12-01]
Anglica historia. Analogous to the description of the Irish people there are two distinct communities divided along cultural and linguistic lines. The highland Scots are described as speakers of the Irish language and are thus sylvestres.
The northern part, more mountainous, is occupied by a race of men much hardier and more rough, why are called the Wild. These wear a cloak and yellow-dyed inner tunic in the Irish style, and go barelegged up to the knee. Their weapons are the bow and arrow together with the sword and a dagger with a single sharpened edge. They all speak Irish, and they live on fish, milk, cheese and meat, and for this reason they possess a great number of cattle.79
Following the Classical model the highland Scots are speakers of a barbarous language and are thus a barbarous people: they are wild, wear barbarous attire and practice pastoralism.
Thus, even before his description of the Irish in book xiii of the Anglica historia, Vergil has defined Irish culture as barbarous. In contrast, the English speaking Scots have acquired
English customs. Consequently, they are part of the civilized world.
The Scots who live towards the south are much better-mannered, and, being more civilized, use the English language. And since forests here are rare, they make their fires with a black stone they excavate from the ground.80
In addition, another Celtic language, i.e. Welsh, is described in the Anglica historia. While
Vergil critiques Welsh pronunciation the text states that the Welsh are the descendants of the
Trojans and that their language may be derived from both Trojan and Greek.
78 Ibid., book xxvi. 79 Ibid., book i. 80 Ibid., book i. XVII The Welsh have a language different from the English. The Welsh derive their ancestry from the Trojans, and claim that their language is partly made of Trojan, and partly of ancient Greek. But, whatever it may, be the Welsh do not pronounce their language as sweetly and softly as do the English.81
The Welsh language is described as a distance relative of two classical languages. Thus, on the scale of linguistic evolution presented in the Anglica historia the Irish language is last.82 The description of the Irish language as barbarous in the Anglica historia reinforces the description of the Gaelic Irish as a barbarous and undeveloped people: the Irish language is utilised to further distance Gaelic Irish culture from the classical concept of civilisation. This idea would be utilised in a political context in the sixteenth century. Ò Cuív notes that ‘de- gaelicising was part of the process designed to produce the centralised state aimed at by the
Tudors.’83 This process is exemplified in the Act for the English order, habite, and language of
1537.84 Analogous to the Anglica historia, under the act of 1537 the English language became synonymous with loyalty to the English crown.
The said English tongue, habit and order, may from henceforth continually (and without ceasing or returning at any time to Irish habit, or language) be used by all man that will acknowledge themselves according to their duties of allegiance, to be his Highness’ true and faithful subjects.85
Arguably, Vergil’s creation of a linguistic dichotomy between the civilised English and barbarous Irish gave a sense of classical legitimacy to official attempts of de-gaelicisation such as the Act for the English order, habite, and language, thus illustrating the importance and influence of the Anglica historia as a work of Tudor colonial propaganda in an Irish context.
Propagandist this depiction may be but it must be understood from the perspective of an Italian scholar of the sixteenth century raised in the philological tradition of the late
81 Ibid., book i. 82 Eric Haywood, ‘La storia dell’Irlanda dell’Anglica historia’, in R. Bacchielli (ed.), Polidoro Virgili e la cultura umanistica europea, Accademia Rafaello, Urbino, 2003, p. 156 83 Brian Ò Cuív, ‘The Irish Language in the Early Modern Period’, in T.W. Moody and F.X. Martin (et. al), A New History of Ireland: Early Modern Ireland 1534-1691, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976, p. 510 84 Ibid., p. 510 85 Tony Crowley, (ed.), The Politics of Language in Ireland 1366-1922: A Sourcebook, Routledge, London, 2000, p.22 XVIII Renaissance. As Morgan notes ‘the ‘denigratory’ view of the Irish did not necessarily indicate a predisposition to pursue colonisation in Ireland: rather, it simply reflected a Renaissance view of what constituted civilisation.’86 The scholars of Renaissance Italy saw themselves as Latini, i.e. inheritors of classical culture based on the Latin language. Moreover, they believed that classical Latin culture enjoyed hegemony over Europe, analogous to the political achievements of the Roman Empire. These points are illustrated in the preface to Lorenzo
Valla’s De elegantia linguae Latinae (1444).87 Valla asserts that owing to its endurance, and in contrast to the Empire’s political control, the spread of the Latin language was the greatest achievement of the Roman Empire.
Subject peoples may have thrown off the yoke of Roman arms, but they remain under the yoke of the Latin language. . . . Italy, France, Spain, Germany . . . and many other countries are still ours. Wherever the language of Rome dominates, the Roman Empire lives on.88
The reassertion of the concept of Rome’s cultural primacy was utilised by Italian writers in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to assert a sense of Italian cultural identity in an era punctuated by foreign invasion and domination of the Italian peninsula. Romanitas was juxtaposed with barbarism to articulate cultural pride and patriotism. Language was a fundamental component in this dichotomy.89 Vergil’s description of the Irish language should be seen in this context. Accordingly, to a sixteenth century Italian Latinist, educated in an environment which reasserted Latin culture above all others, the Irish language would have fitted perfectly into the classical paradigm of a barbarous language, i.e. a non Classical and strange sounding language.
86 Hiram Morgan, ‘Mid-Atlantic Blues’, Irish review, xi, (1991), p. 54 87 Richard Helgerson, ‘Before National Literary History’, Modern Language Quarterly, Vol. 64.2, (2003), p. 178 88 Ibid., p. 178 89 W.R. Jones, ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Oct., 1971), p. 401 XIX However, Vergil enjoyed the patronage of the Tudor monarchy and the Anglica historia was written to ‘justify the Tudors to the scholars of Europe.’90 To appeal to this audience
Vergil redefined the classical ethnographical model to include English in the pantheon of civilised languages. Moreover, in the Anglica historia, England is presented as part of the classical Roman world in an era characterised by the reassertion of classical ideals: English culture is based on classical civilisation and their language is similar to classical Latin. The association of English and Roman culture is a recurring leitmotif in the Anglica historia.
Accordingly, Vergil begins his history of civilisation in England with the Roman conquest.
Prior to the arrival of the Romans the English were ‘forest-dwellers…and lived on milk and meat, because they sowed little grain.’91 This description of the pre-Roman English reflects the classical paradigm of the barbarian as seen above. In addition, it is similar to the image of the
Gaelic Irish presented in the Anglica historia, i.e. a wild pastoral people. However, the English were civilised by the Roman conquest: ‘for they [the Romans] altered everything (as victors are wont to do) and improved much, and by their means the Britons were made far more civilized.’92 In contrast, Ireland was not conquered by the Romans and the Gaelic Irish society presented by Vergil, as seen above, is at the same stage of development as pre-Roman
England. Thus, it is clear that Vergil attempted to create a rapprochement between English and classical culture. This was an attempt to provide legitimacy for the Tudor monarchy amongst the Anglica historia’s target audience, i.e. sixteenth century continental scholars who espoused classical culture and ideas. In contrast, the Gaelic Irish are presented as a model of barbarity both culturally and linguistically, thus acting as a counterpoint to the model of civilisation presented, i.e. Tudor England. Consequently, in its depiction of the Irish as
90 Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, p. 9 91 Dana F. Sutton, ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-12-01]
Vergil’s treatment of language is the most original and influential aspect of his ethnographical representation of the inhabitants of Ireland. As seen above, the Anglica historia divides the Gaelic and Anglo Irish along cultural/linguistic lines according to the classical model. Language would become synonymous with culture and ethnicity in the definition of Irish identity in the second half of the sixteenth-century. This point is exemplified in the writings of Richard Stanihurst (1540-1618).93 Analogous to Vergil, Stanihurst’s ethnographical writing on Ireland is punctuated by the influence of Giraldus Cambrensis.94
However, language, a topic not addressed in Giraldus’ Irish writing, was the key to racial identity for Stanihurst.95 This point is illustrated in his description of Anglo Irish ethnic identity in his A plain and perfect description of Ireland featured in Holinshed’s Chronicle
(1577).
The inhabitants of the English pale have bene in olde tyme so much addicted to all civilitie, and so far sequestred from barbarous savagenesse, as their only mother tongue was English. And truly so long as these empaled dwellers did sunder themselves, as wel in land as in language, from the Irishe: rudeness was day by day in the countrey supplanted, civilitie engrafted, good lawes established, loyaltie observed, rebellion suppressed, and in fine the cyone of a yong England was lyke to shoot in Ireland.96
Stanihurst divides the Anglo and Gaelic Irish along cultural/linguistic lines; the English language is synonymous with civility and Irish with barbarity. Carrol notes that Stanihurst’s
‘focus on the English language absent from Gerald’s Latin text [The History and Topography of
Ireland], unites the discourse on civility versus barbarity with the Renaissance humanist
93 For recent discussions of the life and works of Stanihurst see John Barry, ‘Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis’, Renaissance Studies 18, no.1 (2004): 1-20; Colm Lennon, Richard Stanihurst: The Dubliner 1547- 1618, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1981. 94 Clare Carrol, Circe’s cup, Cork University Press, Cork, 2001, p.19; Colm Lennon, Richard Stanihurst: The Dubliner 1547-1618, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1981, p. 79 95 Clare Carrol, Circe’s cup, Cork University Press, Cork, 2001, p.19; Colm Lennon, Richard Stanihurst: The Dubliner 1547-1618, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1981, p. 79 96 Liam Miller & EileenPower, (eds.), Holinshed’s Irish Chronicle, Dolmen Press, Dublin, 1979, p. 14 XXI discourse of barbarousness.’97 Arguably the Anglica historia is the missing link between
Giraldus and Stanihurst.98 As seen above, Vergil pioneered the use of the classical linguistic dichotomy between civility and barbarism in an Irish context. This model dominates
Stanihurst’s ethnographical accounts of Anglo and Gaelic Irish identity.99 Thus, it is clear that the salient feature of the Anglica historia’s ethnographic description of the Gaelic Irish is its treatment of language. Vergil pioneered the use of the classical ethnographic dichotomy to define the Irish language as barbarous in contrast with English, which is defined as the language of civilisation. This model would influence subsequent crown policy in relation to the Irish language in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries resulting in the gradual marginalisation of gaeilge.100
The descriptions of Irish people presented in the the Anglica historia and Descriptio made notable contributions to the textual representations of Irish identity in the sixteenth- century. As illustrated above, both descriptions utilised the classical ethnographic framework to produce contrasting descriptions of the Irish people. Both texts are anchored in the sixteenth-century Italian tradition of reasserting classical models to describe the present, but in an Irish context, they offer innovative ethnographical details: Vergil’s treatment of language and Giovio’s description of Irish military affairs are particularly notable. Moreover, the
Descriptio is a rare example of a non colonial ethnographical description of the Irish. It offered a positive representation of Irish identity in an era punctuated negative descriptions.101
97 Clare Carrol, Circe’s cup, Cork University Press, Cork, 2001, p. 19 98 The overall influence of the Anglica historia on Stanihurst’s descriptions of Irish identity is a neglected area of research and would require an article in itself. 99 See Vincent Carey ‘‘Neither good English nor good Irish’: bi-lingualism and identity formation in sixteenth- century Ireland’ in Morgan, H., (ed), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541-1641, Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1999, pp. 45-61; Colm Lennon, Richard Stanihurst: The Dubliner 1547-1618, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1981; Miller, L., & Power, E., (eds.), Holinshed’s Irish Chronicle, Dolmen Press, Dublin, 1979. 100 For a discussion of Tudor attitudes and Crown policy towards the Irish language in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries see Tony Crowley, (ed.), The Politics of Language in Ireland 1366-1922: A Sourcebook, Routledge, London, 2000, pp. 12-78; D. Jackson, ‘The Irish language and Tudor government’, Éire /Ireland 8, (1973): 21-30. 101 For a discussion on Italian representations of Irish identity in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries see Eric Haywood, ‘Brutti Irlandesi? La Prima Descrizione Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, in Secchi Tarugi, L., Disarmonia, bruttezza e bizzarria nel Rinascimento, Franco Cesati Editore, Florence, 1998, pp. 173-187; Eric Haywood, ‘Is Ireland Worth Bothering About? Classical Perceptions of Ireland Revisited in Renaissance Italy’ in International XXII Analogous to The History and Topography of Ireland, Vergil’s description of the Gaelic Irish is primarily a work of imperialist propaganda. Written to legitimise the position of the Tudors amongst the intelligentsia of continental Europe, and in support of the Tudor conquest of
Ireland, the Anglica historia systematically utilises the classical ethnographic model to present a negative description of the Gaelic Irish. The descriptions of the Irish people presented in the
Anglica historia and Descriptio enjoyed contrasting fortunes in terms of influence on textual representations of Irish identity in the late sixteenth early seventeenth century. The negative description of the Gaelic Irish presented in the Anglica historia influenced the representation of Irish identity in numerous Italian cosmographies of the late sixteenth century, e.g. d’Anania’s Universale fabrica del mondo (Venice 1576).102 Moreover, in his cosmography
L’isole più famose del mondo (Venice 1572), Porcacchi simply translated Vergil’s description of the Gaelic Irish into Italian, thus disseminating the image of the barbarous Irish to a vernacular Italian audience.103 In addition, there were three different versions of the Anglica historia (1534, 1546 and 1555) as well as numerous reprints of the text (the last being at
Leiden in 1651) thus increasing the influence of Vergil’s text on its European audience.104
Giovio’s description of the Gaelic Irish was utilised by the Swiss cosmographer Sebastian
Münster. The fifth German edition (Basle 1556) and the fourth Latin edition (Basle 1572) of
Münster’s Cosmographia directly plagiarise Giovio’s textual representation of the Irish.105
However, the Descriptio itself was never reprinted and would become a footnote in history.106
In contrast, the representation of Irish identity presented by Vergil had an enduring influence on continental ethnographic descriptions of Ireland and provided a new element to English
Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, no. 4 (1996): 467-486; Eric Haywood, ‘La Divisa dal Mondo Ultima Irlanda: Ossia la Riscoperta Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, 176 (1999): 363-387. 102 Eric Haywood, ‘La Divisa dal Mondo Ultima Irlanda: Ossia la Riscoperta Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 176 (1999): 377 103 Ibid.,, p. 377 104 Denys Hay, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952, pp. 79- 85 105 Eric Haywood, ‘La Divisa dal Mondo Ultima Irlanda: Ossia la Riscoperta Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 176 (1999): 385 106 Ibid., p. 385 XXIII colonial descriptions of the Gaelic Irish, i.e. the vilification of the Irish language. Ultimately the study of the Anglica historia and the Descriptio, in the context of representations of Irish identity, is a neglected area of historical research. As illustrated, both texts made important contributions to continental ideas of Irish identity in the sixteenth-century. However, a detailed analysis of the influence of the Anglica historia on English representations of Irish identity in the sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries is long overdue. It would provide a greater understanding of how classical ideas, specifically the dichotomy between civilised and barbarous languages, reasserted through sixteenth-century Renaissance scholarship, were translated into a colonial context in Ireland. These ideas would influence English textual representations of Irish identity for centuries to come.
XXIV Bibliography
Barker, Ernest, trans. The Politics of Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1946.
Barry, John. ‘Richard Stanihurst’s De Rebus in Hibernia Gestis’. Renaissance Studies 18, no.1 (2004): 1-20.
Bartlett, Robert. Gerald of Wales. Oxford: Clarendon Press Ltd, Oxford, 1982.
Bradshaw, Brendan, and Hadfield, Andrew et al. Representing Ireland: literature and the origins of the conflict, 1534-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Brannigan, John, ‘A Particular Vice of that People: Giraldus Cambrensis and the Discourse of English Colonialism’. Irish Studies Review 6 (1998): 121-130.
Canny, Nicholas P. The Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland: A Pattern Established 1565-76. Sussex: The Harvester Press Ltd, 1976.
Carrol, Clare. Circe’s cup. Cork: Cork University Press, 2001.
Cochrane, Eric. Historians and Historiography in the Italian Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Cosgrove, Art, ed., A New History of Ireland: Medieval Ireland 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford Universtiy Press, 1987.
Crowley, Tony, ed. The Politics of Language in Ireland 1366-1922: A Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 2000.
Dueck, Daniela, Lindsay, Hugh and Pothecary, Sarah eds., Strabo’s Cultural Geography: The Making of a Kolossourgia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Ellis, Steven G. Tudor Ireland: 1470-1603. Essex: Longman Group Limited, 1985.
Freeman, Philip. Ireland and the Classical World. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 2001.
Freeman, T.S. ‘From Catiline to Richard III: The Influence of Classical Historians on Polydore Vergil’s Anglica historia’. In Reconsidering the Renaissance: Papers from the Twenty-First Annual Conference, ed. Mario A. Di Cesare, Medieval&Renaissance Texts and Studies, New York, 1992
Fryde, E.B., Humanism and Renaissance Historiography, The Hambledon Press, London, 1983
Gardner, R., (trans), Cicero The Speeches: Pro Sestio and In Vatinium, William Heinmann Ltd, London, 1958
Hall, Edith, Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition Through Tragedy, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989
XXV Handford, Stanley A., (trans) Julius Caesar: The Conquest of Gaul, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1960
Harris, Jason, ‘Ireland in Europe: Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio (1548)’, Irish Historical Studies, xxxv, no.139 (May 2007): 265-288
Hay, Denys, Polydore Vergil: Renaissance Historian and Man of Letters, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1952
Haywood, Eric, ‘Brutti Irlandesi? La Prima Descrizione Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, in Secchi Tarugi, L., Disarmonia, bruttezza e bizzarria nel Rinascimento, Franco Cesati Editore, Florence, 1998, pp.173-187
― ‘Is Ireland Worth Bothering About? Classical Perceptions of Ireland Revisited in Renaissance Italy’ in International Journal of the Classical Tradition 2, no. 4 (Spring 1996): 467-486
― ‘La Divisa dal Mondo Ultima Irlanda: Ossia la Riscoperta Umanistica dell’Irlanda’, Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 176 (1999): 363-387
― ‘La storia dell’Irlanda dell’Anglica historia’, in R. Bacchielli (ed.), Polidoro Virgili e la cultura umanistica europea, Accademia Rafaello, Urbino, 2003, pp. 143-63
― ‘Paolo Giovio’s Descriptio Hyberniae: Humanist Chorography or Political Manifesto?’, in Schnur, R., (ed.), Acta. Conventus neo-latini bariensis, Medieval&Renaissance Texts and Studies, Arizona, 1998, pp. 315-322.
Helgerson, Richard, ‘Before National Literary History’, Modern Language Quarterly 64.2, (2003): 169-179
Jackson, D., ‘The Irish language and Tudor government’, Éire /Ireland 8, (1973): 21-30
Jones, W.R., ‘The Image of the Barbarian in Medieval Europe’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 13, no. 4 (1971): 376-407
― ‘Giraldus Redivius-English historians, Irish apologists, and the works of Gerald of Wales’, Éire/Ireland 9, (1974): 3-20
Kileen, J. F., ‘Ireland in the Greek and Roman writers’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 76C, (1976): 207-15
Kingsford, Charles L., English Historical Literature in the fifteenth century, Burt Franklin, New York, 1972
Kraye, Jill, The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996
Legstringant, Frank, Mapping the Renaissance World: The Geographical Imagination, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1994
XXVI Lennon, Colm, Richard Stanihurst: The Dubliner 1547-1618, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 1981
Levy, Fred Jacob, Tudor Historical Thought, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967
Mattingly, Harold, (trans), Tacitus: The Agricola and the Germania, Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1948
Miller, Liam, and Power, Eileen, (eds.), Holinshed’s Irish Chronicle, Dolmen Press, Dublin, 1979
Moody, T.W. and Martin F.X. (et al.), A New History of Ireland: Early Modern Ireland 1534-1691, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1976,
Morgan, Hiram, ‘Mid-Atlantic Blues’, Irish review xi, (1991): 50-55
Morgan, Hiram, (ed.), Political Ideology in Ireland, 1541-1641, Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1999
Murphy, Andrew, But the Irish Sea betwixt us: Ireland, Colonialism, and Renaissance Literature, Lexington, Kentucky, 1999, pp. 33-59
Nicholls, Ken, Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages, Gill and Macmillan Ltd., Dublin, 1989
O’Meara, John J., (trans), Gerald of Wales: The History and Topography of Ireland, Dundalk, 1951; rev.edn., Penguin Books Ltd, Harmondsworth, 1982
Simms, K. ‘The Norman Invasion and the Gaelic Recovery’, in Foster, R.F. (ed.), Oxford History of Ireland, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989
Sutton, Dana F., ‘Polydore Vergil, Anglica Historia (1555 version)’, The Philological Museum [cited 2011-01-12]
Tierney, J. J., ‘The Celtic Ethnography of Posidonius’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 60C, (1960): 189-275
Zaleski, Carol G., ‘St. Patrick's Purgatory: Pilgrimage Motifs in a Medieval Otherworld Vision’, Journal of the History of Ideas 46, no. 4, (1985): 467-485
XXVII