1935- [Thomas Michael Keneally]; b. 7 Oct. 1935, N. S. Wales, Australia; descendent of John Kenealy of Newmarket, Co. Cork, a Fenian deported in 1848; ed. Christian Brothers and entered St. Patricks Seminary, Sydney; active in campaign for Australian republic; issued Schindlers List (1982), Booker Prize winner successfully adapted for screen by Steven Spielberg with Liam Neeson in the title role, and The Great Shame (1999), a novel based on experience of his wifes family and particularly Esther Larkin, who followed her deported husband to Australia after successfully petitioning the viceroy Lord Mornington in Dublin; also Homebush Boy, a memoir of Catholic adolescence, followed by The Office of Innocence (2002), a novel dealing with the priestly life.
[ top ]
The Great Shame: A Story of the Irish in the Old World and the New (London: Chatto & Windus; NY: Doubleday 1998), 730pp. [see extract]; The Office of Innocence (Sceptre 2002), 336pp.
[ top ]
Books Ireland (Feb. 1999), interview, pp.7-8; Keneally remarks that the title of The Great Shame is ambiguous and may be taken to refer to the misgovernment of Ireland under British rule, or the failures of all the principals of the story to produce by agitation, constitutional or otherwise, a successful nineteenth-century state in a Europe where many other states were emerging. M[
] I wanted to address the great loss of people, not just those lost to famine, misgovernment, emigration and political upheaval, but all the children who were born elsewhere
On the other hand, theres also a sense of good fortune amongst Irish Australians that we managed to get away. [
Mary Morrissey, review of The Office of Innocence, in The Irish Times (19 Oct. 2002), describes a novel in which Fr. Darragh takes up the cause of Mrs heggarty and is suspected of murder when she is found dead, the real killer coming to him in the confessional: captures beautifully the recklessness of wartime [...] lovingly recreates too the dark dusty presbyteries and the smoky drinking dens, as well as the gothic richness of church rituals [...] the clerical wardrobe - the jaunty birettas,the encrusted stoles - a nostalgic treat for the lapsed Catholic. / But ultimately, The Office of Innoce disappoints. perhaps because its subject is so deeply unfashionable - an innocent priest - but mostly because it starts out as a boys own stry and ends up as a Boys own tale.
[ top ]
Priestly celibacy: I was full of what could be called sexual wonderings rather than direct sexual experience, and the sacrifice involved in undertaking priestly celibacy seemed a minor issue, particularly since I would be surrounded by other men to whom sexual abstinence was the heroic norm. (Quoted in Mary Morrissey, review of The Office of Innocence, in The Irish Times, 19 Oct. 1992 [supra].
|The Great Shame and the Triumph of the Irish in the English-Speaking World
(NY: Nan A. Talese/Doubleday 1998), 712pp.
[Epigraph:] Up to the moment we write, there have been about thirty unfortunate individuals convicted under the Whiteboy Act, and therefore destined to spend the remainder of their lives in a clime far, far distant from their native homes from the land which holds all that is dear to them in the world. (Galway Free Press, 31 March 1832.)
For English and Anglo-Irish noblemen, the post of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was both a challenge and a reward. The Lord Lieutenant was chief executive of Britains most ungovernable kingdom but also the British monarchs representative, and the centre and apogee of Irish society. In the bright July of 1833, the Lord Lieutenant happened to be a friendly and reckless 73-year-old womaniser named Richard Colley Wellesley, 2nd Earl of Mornington. He had the benefit of being the elder brother of the Duke of Wellington, conqueror of Napoleon and former Tory Prime Minister. For the mass of Irish peasants, it did not matter a great deal who held the post. The known face of their landlord or his agent, how much land they had to live off, how secure was their tenure, and what they could sell their labour for these were the intimate and recurrent concerns of their lives. People of quality though, in towns or on their estates in the west of Ireland, wanted to know about the Lord Lieutenants movements, levees and recreation. They read, for example, accounts of that summers Kingstown (now Dun Laoghaire) Regatta.
After the morning sailing races, all the Dublin establishment attended a splendid lunch in a huge marquee pitched in the Commissioners store yard. Then the Lord Lieutenant and Lord Paget returned to Dublin in separate vehicles, and in Mount Street Pagets horses and vehicle ran into a Dublin urchin. His Lordship reined in the horses to prevent his carriage crushing the child, and footmen carried the bloodied child to Mr Burrowes, apothecary, Lower Merrion Street. There were hopes for the survival of the little sufferer. The Lord Lieutenant might have enjoyed the opportunity to be of direct effectiveness. He could not have indulged such simple hopes for the health of Ireland as he did for the health of the Mount Street urchin. For in describing the ills of the kingdom of Ireland, commentators of that period rarely knew where to start. In that very same summer of the Lord Lieutenants encounter with the incautious child, a peasant cottier and farm labourer from East Galway named Hugh Larkin was waiting in the county gaol in Galway city. He was to be judged for a gesture of discontent against his landlord, and so against the system represented and protected by the Lord Lieutenant, Dublin Castle and the Parliament at Westminster.
Hugh was twenty-four years old, married, blue-eyed, robust, and 5 feet 7 1/2 inches tall. According to his East Galway descendants, he was the intense, lively, likeable son of a widowed mother. Then or later he became hard-drinking, yet his record would not imply he was reckless or utterly headstrong.
Larkin came from a scatter of houses at a crossroads known as Lismany. This name for the landscape in which he had spent his childhood and youth bespoke pre-British ownership. The Irish name was Lios Maine, the fort of Maine, long-ago king of the region called Hy Many. This kingdom was made up of parts of modern Galway, Roscommon and a small slab of modern Tipperary. The Gaelic lords of the region had been dispossessed after the victory of the forces of Englands King William III over the Irish at Aughrim, a village north-west of Lismany, in 1691.
During Hughs childhood people had believed that the old Gaelic system was likely to be reasserted by God in some day of jubilation, but that day now seemed too remote to save him. Hughs depression in Galway gaol arose chiefly from homesickness for Lismany, his two infant sons, and his wife Esther Tully, whom he had married three years before in the chapel of the Catholic parish of Clontuskert.
That very name, Clontuskert, showed that Hughs kind of Irish walked the earth with two competing addresses in their heads. For administrative reasons, Dublin Castle had divided the country into Church of Ireland parishes, the smallest local unit, and then into larger baronies, somewhat akin to municipalities. So Larkins official and English-language address as a member of the United Kingdom was (Church of Ireland) parish of Clontuskert, barony of Longford, County Galway. His emotional and native address, however, was (Catholic) parish of Clontuskert, diocese of Clonfert, Hy Many. Perhaps this double geography the peasants carried in their heads was one of the reasons those in power saw them as sly and duplicitous.
Esther and Hugh, living virtually in the midlands of Ireland, spoke English, the language of government and commerce, when they talked to their landlord or went to market, but courted, sang, praised and mourned in Irish. The courtship of Hugh and Esther had been, if at all characteristic of their society, particularly ardent and poetic, driven by furious longing, observed by an entire rural community which did not countenance fornication, but put a premium on flirtation as an art, and on the extravagant use of the images of desire. Gaelic love verses and songs which have come to us in translation indicate the style of eloquent persuasion Hugh would have been required to use with Esther.
—Available at The New York Times
> Books > First Chapters - online
; accessed 23.03.2013; see also review by Jay P. Dolan, New York Times (10 Oct. 1999) - online
[ top ]