A pocket history of Gaelic culture (O'Brien Press Ltd., 2000)
In this book, pages 71 and 72 he produces two histograms (I'm recalling this from memory, and looking through notes I made).
I wonder, are they accurate? They are interesting, none the less from the point of view that successive governments have told us that Irish should be spoken at home (the final phase of loss) while the diachronic perspective would tell us that Irish lost prestige further upstream and it is there that it should receive assistance.
Anglicization of Social Class
Native Aristocracy | 1650 |
Professions | 1700 |
Urban Middle Class | 1720-40 |
UrbanWorking Class | 1780 |
Strong Farmers | 1800 |
Rural Poor (East & Midlands) | 1820-40 |
Rural Poor (South and West) | 1845-90 |
Writing is anglicized
Native Government | 1610 |
Higher Education, law, medicine | 1650 |
Religious Education | 1690 |
Discursive Prose | 1700 |
Imaginative Prose | 1780 |
Poetry | 1820-40 |
Local verse, folklore, private purposes | 1845-90 |
Side by Side
Native Government | 1610 | Native Aristocracy | 1650 |
Higher Education, law, medicine | 1650 | Professions | 1700 |
Religious Education | 1690 | Urban Middle Class | 1720-40 |
Discursive Prose | 1700 | UrbanWorking Class | 1780 |
Imaginative Prose | 1780 | Strong Farmers | 1800 |
Poetry | 1820-40 | Rural Poor (East & Midlands) | 1820-40 |
Local verse, folklore, private purposes | 1845-90 | Rural Poor (South and West) | 1845-90 |
Notice that once government, social influence, education, civil service and all other such mechanisms changed, people follow suit. What I love about is all is that people claim to have 'free will' yet we see here their ancestors changed and changed quite rapidly when they were told to do it by those in charge.