Vivid Faces: The Revolutionary Generation in Ireland, 1890-1923

by R.F. Foster

On Easter Monday, 1916, Irish rebels poured into Dublin's streets to proclaim an independent republic. Ireland s long struggle for self-government had suddenly become a radical and bloody fight for independence. R. F. Foster, the "most brilliant and courageous Irish historian of his generation" (Colm Toibin), traces the roots of the Easter Rising by focusing on the vivid faces. These were the ordinary people who sparked the rebellion, embracing revolution in all areas of life, public and private. The radical temperament encompassed politics, sex, marriage, Catholicism, education, family, theater, fiction, and poetry. Drawing on letters and diaries, Foster gives personal voice to the soaring ideals of feminism, socialism, and Irish nationalism. Vivid Faces shows how politics fused with the intimacies of love and belief, revealing the rising as an event not only of the streets but also of the hearts and minds of a generation.

Genres: History, Ireland, Nonfiction, Irish Literature, Politics, Biography

464 pages, Paperback

First published October 2, 2014

About the author

Robert Fitzroy Foster, PhD, FBA, FRHistS, FRSL

Reviews

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

R. F. Foster knows that the political motivations for the 1916-23 revolution have been written to death, so instead he answers the questions: Who were the revolutionaries, socially? What other motivations were at play? Vivid Faces paints a picture of the familial/sex, educational, journalistic, and literary lives of individuals who would bring about the Easter Rising. Then it shifts to the Rising week, the fallout and effects through 1923, and history-making.

What makes the book amazing: First of all, the back matter is off the charts! Good notes, good index… and a biographical appendix that saved me many a trip to Wikipedia, while keeping the book’s flow intact.

Secondly, Foster’s prose is superb... especially for a book that can’t fully rely on a narrative arc. (A couple chapters do lag a bit – I couldn’t stay riveted for quite so many pages on end of the genealogy of republican playwriting.)

Thirdly, the study hinges on sources from the revolutionary years themselves, and accounts skewed by hindsight are used sparingly. This credits the book as a portrait of individuals and thoughts as they were… before the disillusionment of the 1920’s and the task of preserving reputations set in.

With all this brilliance, who wouldn’t want to read this book?

Anyone new to Irish history. R.F. Foster assumes his readers know the political strains and motivations for the Easter Rising and the Civil War... He also avoids the agrarian/economic problems and solutions in Ireland, until literally the book’s conclusion.

Heads up: The book’s discussions of women are substantial, but quarantined to isolated sections. This may reflect the attitudes of the 1910’s, but it doesn’t make for sophisticated history. I also expected a more thoughtful discussion of the revolutionary generation’s financial lives. Readers of this book might make the mistake of thinking the revolutionary generation was made entirely of middle-class folks, whose only repressions were social.

If you know anything about early 20th c. Ireland, read this book! If not, be sure to come back later.

[Alison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a marvelous history. I have a weak spot for stories of what turns artists and writers and casual agitators into actual revolutionaries (even when they do come with tragic or complicated conclusions). This is one one of the best I've read. I love how much space is given to women here, too.

[Bfisher · Rating 4 out of 5]

As the writer notes, the title of this book comes from the first stanza of W.B. Yeat’s immortal poem, “Easter 1916”

I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
...
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.

Yeats wrote “Easter 1916” in the immediate aftermath of the Easter Rising. In the phrase “vivid faces”, in contrast to “grey eighteenth-century houses”, “passed with a nod of the head” and “they and I but lived where motley is worn” he seemed to be indicating his realization in retrospect that the leaders of the Easter Rising were somehow different, a break with the past (18th century) and the present -Yeats himself, who had built his literary career in English, albeit with Irish themes. The revolutionaries were not a part of the "casual comedy", they represented an abrupt change ("terrible beauty") from the gradualism of the Home Rule political movement and of the Gaelic cultural movement.

Foster describes the cultural tendencies that molded the revolutionary generation. This constitutes the major focus of the book, although he also describes the disappointments of many of the revolutionary generation in the conservative aftermath, and how the Rising became memorialized.

[Inna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant book on the generation of 1916 uprising in Ireland. The author concentrates on cultural and behavioral aspects of what it entailed to be a revolutionary at that time.

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this a little too scattered to really deeply engage with. This may be because I have only a bare-bones understanding of the Rising to Civil War period, and the book's intended audience is one for whom the hefty roster of characters needs no refresher (a note that I read this on an ereader - if the biographical notes had been connected in the text through something like xray, that would have made a world a difference to this book). I can't help thinking though, that if the structure had told indivdual stories, then the worlds of the revolutionaries might have come alive. Instead, by structuring thematically - education, militarisation, gender & sex - the experiences became atomised. This might not have mattered if the similarities between all those covered was strong - so it was a single set of views/experiences discussed - but instead this is a widelyy varying bunch of people whose individual world's became a little lumped into an amorphous mass for me.
This scattered effect is exaggerated by the author's apparent antipathy to discussing class or political debates, which inevitably creep in to the narrative, but without a clear treatment don't seem integrated into a general worldview of anyone.

Having said that, this is a far more interesting take on the subject than one which focuses primarily on the men in charge, for including a diverse and more representative roster, and I think those with a passion for this period of history would get a lot of the book.

[Paul Blaney · Rating 4 out of 5]

The publication of this book reminds us of next year's centenary of the Easter Rising. That said, Vivid Faces is not for those looking for a 1916 primer; rather it presents a portrait of the radical generation that, from the last decade of the nineteenth century, were the central players in the run-up to the "Irish Revolution".

As such, Foster focuses on some twenty historical figures, almost as many women as men, and gauges the effect of different factors (the theatre, Irish language education, journalism) in forming them and fomenting the outbreak of violence. The broad cast of characters is both an advantage and a weakness, as is the division of the book into thematic chapters. Fewer characters, focused on less episodically, would have made for a stronger narrative.

For all that, I found Vivid Faces to be rich in detail, deepening my knowledge of these climactic years in Ireland. Inevitably, the tone turns slightly elegaic; the ideals of the young revolutionaries are not realized. Disillusion sets in as pluralism and pacifism and feminism and socialism are first sidelined and then written out of the history of 1916. Patriarchy and piety were to be the order of the years that followed.

[Niall MacDonagh · Rating 1 out of 5]

In the book he refers to "the four Gifford sisters". As it happens one of the SIX Gifford sisters, Muriel, was my grandmother and of course the other FIVE were my grandaunts. One of those he omitted was Ada who emigrated to the US and was seldom heard from thereafter. The other sister that he did not mention was Kate Gifford Wilson who, when I was a child regaled me with the story of how, when imprisoned in Kilmainham Gaol, she asked for a bible which was provided and which she then put in the jamb of her cell door and pulled it off her hinges. He also says that Helen (better known as Nell) never married. She did marry and her married name was Donnelly and she had a daughter Maeve. All of these errors were in a couple of paragraphs. Now the Gifford sisters were not obscure and there are a couple of books about them so it is not as though he did not have sources that he could have consulted.

Given that number of errors it would be hard to take anything else in the book on faith.

[Paul Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

THIS WAS PUBLISHED five years ago, to coincide (I assume) with the centenary of the Easter Rising of 1916, so it has something in common with Revolution, the mini-series based on the Rising. Rather like the television series, it takes as primary focus the personalities of and the relationships among participants in the Rising--not in a soap opera way (although Chapter 4, "Loving," has its gossipy passages), but through a deep dive into the archive of the people who hoped for, imagined, planned, and finally brought about the event.

Foster is the leading Irish historian of this period in his generation, most would say, so hardly anyone is better situated to write a book on the rising. It's not (another) day-by-day, hour-by-hour account, though, nor an assessment of its aims, failures, and ultimate impact. Rather, it is a look at the generation and the culture that produced its principal players, both those onstage and those backstage and those in the alley behind the theater.

From that angle, Vivid Faces puts me less in mind of Revolution than it dioes of another book I am slowly grinding through, Yuri Slezkine's massive House of Government, about the people who brought about the Bolshevik revolution and then tried to create the world's first socialist state. Slezkine, like Foster, looks at what the people read, what they wrote, the clubs they organized, their love lives. And it turns out--keeping in mind all the differences there are between being Irish and being Russian--that the two revolutionary generations had some shared traits, not least a vision of a new, unprecedented world and a willingness to put their lives on the line to bring that world into being. They share a certain ferocity, a certain idealism, a certain refusal to let the past dictate the bounds of possibility to them.

Foster notes that the comparison already occurred to Irish poet/painter/ visionary George Russell (a.k.a. AE), who published an essay on the topic, "Lessons of Revolution," way back in 1923.

The most grievous of the similarities: both revolutions evolved with startling speed into grim new societies that the revolutionaries would never have sought nor have considered desirable: In Ireland, the cautious, business-friendly, church-friendly Irish Free State of Cosgrave and de Valera; in Russia, Stalinism. All the ardor, argument, and blood sacrifice produce a victory, but the inheritors of the revolution's mantle soon find themselves reconstructing the iron box the revolutionary generation was trying to break apart.

[Paul Nally · Rating 5 out of 5]

Vivid Faces - R.F. Foster

I loved this book, a history which reads like a novel. This was facilitated by the concentration on the lives and perspectives of individuals who participated in the Irish revolution either centrally or marginally.

It is clear from this book that what was involved for these people was more than a fight for Irish political independence but a need to obtain personal freedom which was seen by many despite, in many cases, their privileged and educated status or possibly because of it, as restricted or repressed by not only the lack of political independence but by the pervasiveness of British culture and what it represented. And this, as clearly and astutely presented by Foster, was ultimately the problem. The political independence which was achieved following on the Irish revolution commencing with the Easter rebellion of 1916, was always going to be a disappointment. What was sought or the psychological, emotional ambitions which underlay the radicalisation of these people was never going to be satisfied by what was achieved. The fight for independence and the decolonisation and the gaelicisation of the Irish way of life were symbolic for the individuals involved of what they sought or desired at a personal emotional or spiritual level rather than ends which in themselves could satisfy their needs. The process, the revolution itself was, in a sense, more important than the end goal. So with Pearse,in particular, and many others the act of blood sacrifice and ultimate martyrdom was the important thing not only for himself personally but also for the Irish people, equivalent to the actions of Jesus Christ, dying on the cross, to redeem his people. Pearse may have been an extreme example of this viewpoint - Terence McSweeney being another - but many of those involved, as depicted by Foster had similar, if less extreme, perspectives. In this respect many of those who participated in the Rising were exalted by the experience and invited death as the ultimate conclusion of the transformative experience and symbolic happening. So what happened in the Rising took on a spiritual/religious significance. This is clearly portrayed by Foster where he refers to the confessions made by the rebels in the GPO and other religious rituals. The rebellion took on a religious significance and character as much as a political and militant one. So the contrast between the rebels/radicals view of how independence was to be achieved was in clear contrast as to how that was being achieved by the members of the Irish Parliamentary Party in Westminster through negotiation and compromise. For the rebels this way of doings things was anathema and corrupting. For them separation/independence had to be achieved by violent action. Anything else was a violation. The means of achieving the end goal was as important, if not more so, than the end itself. The disrespect, not to say hostility, with which the Redmondite party and its dealings, were held and considered by the extremist radicals must be seen in this light and is highlighted by Foster.

The radicals were not all similarly minded. Some were secularist such as Rosamund Jacob from Waterford and P.S O'Hegarty from Cork who despised the pietistic and Catholic influence which was so evident in the GPO and became such a fundamental ingredient of the new post-revolution State despite the clergy having been seen as hand-in-glove with the British administration. O'Hegarty turned his back on the revolution following the war of independence:
"We devised certain 'bloody instructions' to use against the British. We adopted political assassination as a principle; we devised the ambush; we encouraged women to forget their sex and play at gunmen; we turned the whole thoughts and passions of a generation upon blood and revenge and death; we placed gunmen, mostly half-educated and totally inexperienced, as dictators with powers of life and death over large areas. We derided the moral law and said there was no law but the law of force. And the moral law answered us. Every devilish thing we did against the British went its full circle and then boomeranged and smite us ten-fold; and the cumulative effect of the whole of it was a general moral weakening and a general degradation and a general cynicism and disbelief in either virtue or decency, in goodness or uprightness or honesty."

This was the time of the suffragettes and the number of women prominent in the separatist movement, given their oppressed state, is surprising. However their feminist values meant nothing in the new State overridden as they were by the oppressive mysogynistic church and its mouthpieces in government.

Although the labour movement through the Irish Citizens Army, James Connolly, Michael Mallin and Countess Markeviecz were prominent in the Rising, Connolly before his death, despite his socialism, received communion and "enjoined his wife to adopt Catholicism." Countess Markeviecz converted to Catholicism. So they were all sucked into to the prevailing religious, pietistic miasma to the detriment and subordination of their own particular cause. As Foster says (p248) "Very rapidly, the language of mystical Catholicism fused with national purism in a new - or ancient - revolutionary rhetoric."
Foster (p301/302) refers to the controversial staging of O'Casey's 'The Plough and the Stars' in the Abbey Theatre in 1926 where he states that the controversy also gave "O'Casey the opportunity not only to hit at those who had - in his opinion - diverted the Citizen Army from social radicalism in 1913 to solipsistic nationalism in 1916, but also to attack the post-revolutionary dispensation that perpetuated an agreed lie about what had actually happened, creating a cultural sterile environment. In a public letter, he specifically targeted the cult of official commemoration. 'The people that go to football matches are just as much a part of Ireland as those who go to Bodenstown and it would be wise for the Republican Party to recognise this fact, unless they are determined to make of Ireland the terrible place of a land fit for only heroes to live in.'"

Having been brought up in the 1960s, a time of social and cultural change where young people were rebelling against their parents' values and opinions in a manner akin to the radicals of the pre-revolutionary period as depicted by Foster, the difference for me and my generation was that we had no specific enemy to address our hostilities and opinions against. We were part of a cultural renaissance which transformed society over time without, fortunately, having to take up arms to defeat the villain which we envisaged as obstructing our road to an imagined utopia. A similar analogy can be made to the radicalised Muslims of the present who have taken up arms and bombs to take on what they see as the Western infidels particularly represented by America who they see both literally and symbolically as the enemy and oppressors of their world view.

[Julian Douglass · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough yet scattered history of the men and women who made the new Irish Nation. Mr. Foster clearly knows his stuff, but the setup and arraignment of this book makes it very difficult to follow. Reintroducing characters left and right, going from 1879 on one page to 1921 on another and then ricocheting back and forth just made the reading confusing and hard to follow. Maybe a more linear history, or a better way of organizing the book would have made this a more enjoyable read.

[Brendan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely an interesting take on the whole period leading up to and following 1916. I particularly found it interesting to see the interconnections among so many of those involved in so many modes (newspapers and journals, schools, drama and theatre) and then the connections down the line to later generations (Robert Brennan whose '16 activities earned him a death sentence that was later commuted was the father of Maeve Brennan, the novelist; Desmond Fitzgerald, also active in the Rising, was the father of Taoiseach Garrett Fitzgerald; Eilis Dillon (Across the Bitter Sea and The Wild Geese), was the niece of another '16 revolutionary, Joseph Plunkett-I also hadn't known that Eileen Ni Chuilineain (poet) who was a lecturer of mine--and Siomha's--at Trinity is the daughter of Eilis Dillon). Mainly though, this book, does an excellent job of showing the incredible complexities of the Rising and the Civil War.

[Jane Massy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent thought provoking account of the 'generation' that 'led' the declaration of the Republic and the many and varied influences that led to their determination of a rejection of the status quo. Anyone who wishes to deepen their insight into what happened in the years up to and including 1916 will find this a fresh and different perspective.

[Brendan Sheehan · Rating 4 out of 5]

To capture the depth of emotion I felt in the latter half of the book is a tribute to both the author’s tremendous scaffolding but also my own complicated thoughts on the development of what eventually has become the Republic of Ireland, especially as the more I learn about how little the revolutionaries put to mind the partition of Ireland which would burn decades on after and remains unresolved. Wasn’t the Free State a slightly watered down version of Home Rule? Wasn’t de Valera’s decision to go back into politics with Fianna Fáil a betrayal of every deceased anti-Treaty solider? The wars of the revolutionary generation took so many lives and for what? That one day Ireland would be free. But, no utopia was created on the stained floors of the GPO as the first half of the book goes through frankly with too much diligence there were so many roads that existed in the revolutionary generation - feminist, pacifist, socialist, anti-clerical, Protestant, e.g but it seems even in the moment (perhaps because it was Holy Week) that the Catholic nationalist narrative took control of the event. But as made clear by the author the rambunctious days of turn of the century Ireland brought many too the point of revolution and do many of those ended up feeling betrayed. I felt strongly in the early chapters how many people are caught up in a similar feeling with respect to their parents politics and we may be on the cusp of an unsuspecting revolutionary generation - but many will likely come to an eventual realization that their utopia will never come about, yet a a terrible beauty may be born.

Why this is not a 5 star book? Frankly the middle chapters felt to me Biblical verses where every generation back to Adam and Eve are listed. The author clearly wanted to recreate almost all of pre-Rising Ireland but as many of those individuals aren’t in the post-Rising Ireland perhaps they could have been cut. Or conversely many of the main cast of characters of post-Rising Ireland emerge as out of Cronos’ head which made me confused. Isn’t the book about the Revolutionary Generation? Which too be fair many of the young people involved did not have much of a pre-1916 resume. But as an example it felt that W.B. Yeats was on every page in the pre-1916 chapters and de Valera was mentioned maybe five times, whereas from 1916 onwards Yeats is obscure and de Valera is the leading character. Some more connective tissue could have been made instead of introducing felt like every publication that was released in Ireland in 1898-1916.

It’s a very good history but perhaps one to read after reading a general history or listening to a good podcast on the subject.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book if you want to discover what the leading lights of the Irish revolution in the 1916-23 period were thinking and doing in the run-up to the Easter Rising in 1916 and immediately afterwards. It does pay, however, to have a reasonable amount of background knowledge of at least the dramatis personae, otherwise all the names start to melt into one another - there were quite a few of them. In essence Porter takes the line that many of the revolutionaries were somewhat idealistic and didn't really take full cognisance off the fact that there would be strife and bloodshed if they were to achieve their goal - an Ireland free of the British Empire. Of course, there were those who fully realised it would be nasty and messy.
It was interesting for me to read about those who don't quite fit the accepted mould - northern Protestants who were in favour of Ireland breaking away from Britain, for example.
Foster is very good at giving an insight into the atmosphere, the Zeitgeist if you like, of the time. He makes the point well that in fact by historic standards these revolutionaries were actually living in a reasonably enlightened and liberal time, and the fact that they were able to found so many Irish societies to underline their non-Britishness was both a symbol of their freedom and their desire to take it much further. Post-rising he makes the point that many who survived were actually disillusioned by what had come about, an Irish Free State which was arch-conservative and increasingly in the grip of the Catholic church. Revolutions rarely lead where their supporters want them to go.

[Daniel Carrol · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fantastic account of the social, scholarly, literary, theatrical and journalistic circles that informed and radicalized a generation of young Irish revolutionaries with romantic hopes of a future Irish Republic that would be socialist, feminist and for some, entirely secular. And how that generation turned on one another and became disillusioned with in turn the treaty, and the conservative, Catholic state (and it's authorized view of who and what had driven the cause of the Easter Uprising) that would follow the four bloody years of the Anglo-Irish and Irish Civil wars.

The most lasting accomplishment of this book is the acknowledgement of the role of women both before and after 1916, large parts of the book rely on the writings of Alice Milligan, Rosamond Jacobs, the Ryan sisters and Hanna Sheehy-Skeffington, as other than Constance Markievicz it would appear from the long established history that the revolution was entirely male and catholic (Casement and Connolly's conversion prior to their deaths appearing to trump their humanitarian and socialist views entirely), this alone would appear to make it a unique account of this transformative period in Irish history.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first reaction is to think it laughable that Foster could ever be thought the epitome of the ‘revisionist’, west-Brit historian. Vivid Faces gives a sympathetic - and, at times, admiring - survey of the ‘advanced nationalist’ ecosystem in Ireland before the Easter Rising. It’s also highly progressive in that it rehabilitates the role of women in the nationalist agitation of the period and criticises the conservative, religious ethos that quickly asserted itself in the fledgling Free State, a belief many socialist republicans share.

I have seen an unsympathetic reviewer describe Foster as the great synthesiser of Irish historiography, the implication being that he leans on the original research of others. And while the bibliography attests to his having done considerable research - reading nationalist newspapers, diaries, testimonies to the Military Bureau… - the book doesn’t really dispel the notion that Foster is at home where he can draw broad-brush narratives without getting his hands dirty. As a historian he doesn’t show his workings; it is not a book packed with arguments. You are to take for granted the truth of his narrative, almost as though it is settled and uncontentious.

For a book that has quickly become the classic work on the ‘revolutionary generation’ - and Foster’s first serious work since his biography of Yeats, published thirteen years earlier - it is surprisingly short. 340 pages, plus references and a section of rather dry biographies of individuals named in the main text. I came away without the vivid sense of the protagonists promised by the title. Although there is much quotation, Foster has a tendency to tell the reader what a particular person said or believed without allowing them to show it for themselves.

This is a contentious criticism but I felt the book failed to situate the revolutionary generation in its wider social context, giving a sense of its scale. Reading the book you would be forgiven for concluding that Dublin was consumed by the politics and culture of revolutionary nationalism, but everything else I’ve read, including Yeats’s poem, suggests that it was a fringe movement. The book is about that generation so of course it is going to centre it, but I don’t think you can properly understand it unless you are given a proper sense of its relative scale.

I have never liked Foster’s writing style. To me it is too heavily laden with showy phrasing that gets in the way of the scholarship. In fairness, I thought Vivid Faces was an improvement in that regard, but still there must be at least a dozen italicised French phrases and certain esoteric references that he must know will leave a big chunk of his readers in the dark.

But for all my reservations it is a very competent and assured book, as is to be expected from Foster. Many people who think they have a good knowledge of the time will be shocked by how many names they didn’t know and how rich the cultural ferment was below the leadership of the Easter Rising.

[Sophie Allan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Honestly I struggled to really get into this book. Perhaps it’s the writing style or maybe just my style of learning, but there is only a few solid chapters I properly got into. The others I skimmed quite quickly. From an academic perspective, it is a good reference book for certain factors of the Irish revolutionary era and helps to formulate the driving factors for the Easter Rising and the Irish Civil War, and does offer summarises biographies of key players but in all honesty this isn’t a book I would re-read again.

I will say though, my knowledge on this era of Irish history is definitely elevated and I guess the book served its purpose in that context, but at so the style of writing just lessens the impact I thought this book would have☹️

[Kaylee Schmelzer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book would have been much better for someone who already had a lot of background knowledge about the Irish Civil War and wanted a further exploration of known figures by topic. I did not have that background and so I didn't have a narrative attachment to many of the figures. It could read like a list of names ("x, y, and z fit into this group, while a, b, and c took this approach). I liked the first chapter best because it explored the motivations for revolution, which to me were still timely for today. Ultimately, I think I could have found that idea in a more narrative text and would look for that next time.

[Shane Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this, the narrative was well put together, which I’ve found to be the issue with other Irish history books. It pushes you to think about the different avenues that Ireland could have went down under different circumstances. More me, just wishfully thinking about alternative scenarios to ‘Devil-era’.

[Aaron Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, immersive book into the lives, loves and ideals of the most famous Irish generation. Would recommend highly.

Excellent book, wonderful illustrations of the ideas and passions that moved a nation to revolution. Would recommend heartily to all my Irish brethren

[Tim O'Mahony · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening account of the mix of ideas and personalities that made up the Irish Revolution

[Joey Mopsink · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this :)

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a neophyte to serious Irish-history scholarship, I found Vivid Faces accessible as an introduction to the events and personalities of the Easter Rising. It helped that it was so well-connected to what I did know about the period, namely the literature. Yeats gives the book its title, young Joyce makes a couple of priceless appearances, and Synge and O'Casey provide both occasion for and commentary on the larger events. Moreover, Foster's own writing is funny and engaging, even as he maintains all due scholarly scruple. His own literary sense (he is, the Wiki tells me, a Yeats biographer, and once sat on the Booker jury) is well-placed for this sort of political history, where intellectuals and literary types were also historical actors.

The larger arc of the book begins with an argument about where Ireland fits in the scope of current theory in the history of revolutions. I don't know that literature at all and can't speak to how Foster engages it. Nevertheless, throughout the book I kept thinking of other, contemporary examples in the processes of radicalization. As a lefty, I tend to think of "radical" as a good word, but the history Foster recounts is in part a story of how a very idealistic, rather left-wing radical moment of 1913-16 turned into something much more brutal in the subsequent Irish Civil War, continuing through the Troubles for generations.

The role of religion, in this case Catholicism, is another thread that caught me up. The specifics of Catholic piety make some immediate, emotional sense to me as a revolutionary source, even as the policy results of that piety are so often reactionary. Reading this book, I couldn't help but think of other postcolonial settings, in Africa or the Middle East, where revolutionary sentiment and religious fervor have made for very dangerous mixtures. "Radical Catholicism" makes me think of Dorothy Day, "radical Islam" of ISIL—which is arguably not fair, but Foster's radical Catholics were often murderous out of power and repressive in it. 1920s Ireland is not terribly comparable to today's Iraq and Syria, but for reasons that don't come down to the simple presence or absence of revolutionary religion. The specific programs and goals of subject formation matter decisively. What Foster does so impressively in Vivid Faces is to show those programs and goals at work in Edwardian Ireland, across a very internally-diverse revolutionary generation, and draw out all their complexity in both process and result.

[Damien G · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that explores the ideas and philosophy of the Irish who wanted independence.The book shows us that there were many differing themes prior to 1916 on what it was to be Irish.A majority wanted an Ireland which had existed before the English arrived, Gaelic and Catholic.There were those who were opposed to the power of the Roman church and wanted a true secular state like the USA.It is a book which enables one to understand why the civil war occurred after the treaty.The Republicans in the North, were of little importance to their southern partners in this civil war. The war centred on the philosophy of Develera an absolute no compromise Republican.Collins would accept a compromise and the possible loss of the north,because he would accept nine counties, not six.Develera said this would lead to a the north being able to survive after the treaty.A continuing British influence in Ireland which is not full independence.That Collins had signed a treaty that split the country and he willingly did what the British wanted all along,a Protestant unionist north.Develera cited Easter 1916 as his reason for not accepting the treaty, and it is the betrayal of their ideas which led to the civil war.

[Nadine Sutton · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read this in a bitty way, but It is worthy of more than that. Bought it on holiday. I studied this period for my Master's degree, and it was of great interest to me. And becuase the Irish Revolution ended in a very very conservative state, with "rebels" taking over, who ended up being more rigid and almost reactionary than the government they replaced, there are times when it all seemed so very depressing, that the whole Rising and movement wasn't wroth the pain and effort and the lives that it cost. So it is good to be reminded of the cultural aspects, of the variety of different sorts of peoplle who sympathised or took part in 1916.. and how they had more radical ideas, which got lost in the struggle to fight the British and then to establish a stable government, in the face of the violence arising from the Civil War. Perhaps without that awful episode in our past, the new Ireland would have been more liberal minded, less rigid and repressive...

[Vendela · Rating 5 out of 5]

Riveting, exemplary scholarship, a cast of thousands that are somehow kept track of and easily distinguishable throughout. A fascinating view of the world that creates the 1916 Rising in Ireland and set the stage for the sectarian violence to come. It was extremely interesting to read about the pluralistic ideologies that were the base of what became a much more conservative and nationalist movement later, and to see how it happened. Foster also makes very sure not to just stick to the usual suspects, but allows the women who were (surprise) an integral part of the movement considerable space and scholarly effort. Absolutely fantastic.

[Nick Garbutt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The revisionist Irish historian’s study into the radicalization of the men and women behind the Irish revolution, examining their backgrounds and mentalities and the forces that shaped them.
It is a remarkable piece of research, casting new light on an extraordinary generation with all their oddities and foibles. A thoroughly entertaining and readable work.
It covered much of the ground I researched for my MA in Irish history - it reinforced the impression I had at the time of just how strange and alien that generation seems now!

[Jbondandrews · Rating 4 out of 5]

There was certainly a lot of information and detail about the people involved and I had not known anything of the women involved. It is sad to think that because of deValera that Ireland did not turn out the way it perhaps could have although it is difficult to see what sort of Ireland would have emerged had those that had been executed have lived. There are as always with historical events more questions than answers and the what ifs that can never be answered.

[Patrick SG · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a compelling and novel look into the lives that shaped Ireland's revolutionary generation of a century ago. It helps to have a general knowledge of the times and the players before reading this book, but much can be gained by a reader unfamiliar with the background. The author makes the era come alive in this very readable history.

[Pat · Rating 5 out of 5]

Exhaustively researched, confidently written and informed by decades of deep rethinking of Irish history and mythography. This is the book to read if you want to understand the mind of the Irish generation that won Irish independence at the cost of Irish freedom.

Read it on St. Patrick's day instead of drinking shitty green beer.