1Bernadette Cunningham, The World of Geoffrey Keating (Dublin: Four Courts, 2000), p.xiii.
2Bernadette Cunningham, ‘Keating, Geoffrey’, Dictionary of Irish Biography (Cambridge and Dublin: Cambridge University Press and Royal Irish Academy, 2009), vol. 5, pp.42–4.
3Geoffrey Keating/Seathrún Céitinn, The History of Ireland/Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, translation by David Comyn and Patrick S. Dineen (London: The Irish Texts Society, David Nutt, 4 vols, 1902–1914), written MS circa 1634.
4Patrick J. Corish, The Catholic Community in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Dublin: Helicon, 1981), p.41.
5Ibid., pp.2–3.
6See Keating, The History of Ireland/Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, trans. David Comyn, vol. I, p.3. The two populations are normally referred to by Keating as Sean-Ghaill and Gaeil. The spelling has been modernised.
7Ibid., pp.10–11.
8Ibid., pp.36–7.
9Dermod O’Connor, Keating’s General History of Ireland: Translated from the original Irish, with many curious amendments taken from the Psalters of Tara and Cashel & c. (Dublin: James Duffy, 1865), p.545.
10See Keating, The History of Ireland/Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, pp.151–5.
11Cf. for example Robin Flower, The Irish Tradition [1947] (Dublin: Lilliput, 1994), pp.14–15.
12See Raymond Gillespie, Reading Ireland (Manchester: University Press, 2005), p.14 for MS distribution of FFE.
13See Cunningham, The World of Geoffrey Keating, pp.204–5. My own edition of O’Flaherty (Hely’s translation) dates from 1793, and my O’Connor version of FFE is James Duffy, undated but probably 1860s.
14Brendan Bradshaw, ‘Reading Seathrún Céitinn’s Foras Feasa ar Éirinn’, in Pádraig O Riain (ed.), Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Éirinn: Reassessments (Dublin: Irish Texts Society, 1986), pp.1–18.
15Marc Caball, ‘Patriotism, Culture and Identity: the Poetry of Keating’, in Pádraig O Riain (ed.), Geoffrey Keating’s Foras Feasa ar Éirinn: Reassessments (London: 1986), pp.19–39.
16Elaine A. Byrne, Political Corruption in Ireland 1922–2010, (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2012), p.56.
3
William Molyneux, The Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated (1698)
‘Spirit of Swift, Spirit of Molyneux,’ Henry Grattan famously declared, ‘Your genius has prevailed! Ireland is now a nation!’ He was referring to the establishment in 1782 of the independent Irish Ascendency Parliament that lasted until the Act of Union in 1801. Jonathan Swift is remembered, as he was in Grattan’s time, as the presiding genius of eighteenth-century Ireland. William Molyneux (1656–1658), no less important in Grattan’s eyes, has since been forgotten. Molyneux was toasted by Grattan for his 1698 pamphlet, The Case of Ireland’s being bound by Acts of Parliament in England, Stated, which made a constitutional case for the re-establishment of an autonomous Irish Parliament, something Ireland did not have since the enactment of Poynings’ Law in 1492.1 The specific case for Irish parliamentary autonomy advanced by Molyneux was built upon ideas that really only entered the domain of mainstream political argument several decades later. During the eighteenth century The Case of Ireland came to be cited by Swift, Charles Lucas, Grattan and even Wolfe Tone. Rising interest in Molyneux over time and the trajectory of Protestant patriotic politics coincided with the rising influence of Locke, particularly in America, whose own case for independence from England came to influence late eighteenth-century politics in Ireland.
In 1682, through Molyneux’s influence, Locke’s Essay on Human Understanding became part of the curriculum at Trinity College Dublin. However, it was not until the late 1770s that it came to be joined by his Two Treatises on Government. During the first half of the eighteenth century Locke could be claimed as the father of Irish philosophy. Locke framed philosophical and theological questions that variously preoccupied Bishop Berkeley and Edmund Burke. In 1724, in his fourth Drapier letter, Swift cited Locke and Molyneux as dangerous authors, ‘who talk of Liberty as a blessing to which the whole race of Mankind hath an Original Title; whereof nothing but unlawful force can divest them.’2 Swift and some other Irish writers presumed a familiarity among their readers with Locke. Perhaps they envisaged them as having come across The Essay on Human Understanding at Trinity. Locke had come to be cited as an authority on education in Ireland. However, it was not until the 1770s that the Two Treatises become his best-known work.
Molyneux was a natural philosopher who engaged in scientific experimentation and contributed to philosophical debates. In 1683, at the age of twenty-five, he became a founding member of the Dublin Philosophical Society, established upon the empirical principles of the Royal Society. His studies of optics were highly regarded by Robert Boyle amongst others. By profession he was a lawyer and a surveyor but he had also inherited estates in Armagh, Limerick and Kildare. He held a number of posts on government commissions. Before the war between William of Orange and King James II he was the surveyor-general of fortifications and buildings and was responsible for the design of Dublin Castle. During the war he fled with his family to Chester in England and returned to Dublin after the Battle of the Boyne. Many other Protestant Irish with the means to do so did likewise.
Molyneux’s aim in charting this constitutional history was to build a case for Irish parliamentary autonomy. He drew upon the Lockean principle of rule by consent as well as upon precedent. That Ireland should be bound by Acts of Parliament made in England, was against reason and the common rights of all mankind:
All Men are by Nature in a State of Equality, in respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion. This I take to be a Principle in itself so evident, that it stands in need of little Proof. It is not to be conceived, that Creatures of the same Species and Rank, promiscuously born to all the same Advantages of Nature, and the Use of the same Faculties, should be subordinate and subject one to another; these to this or that of the same Kind. On this Equality in Nature is founded that Right which all Men claim of being free from all Subjection to positive Laws, until by their own Consent they give up their Freedom, by entering into civil Societies for the common Benefit of all the Members thereof. And on this Consent depends the Obligation of all human Laws; insomuch that without it, by the unanimous Opinion
