l Institutionalising the Rising: the National Museum and 1916

Institutionalising the rising: the National Museum and 1916

EMMA LIBRERI

1. This article is based on a talk presented at the Irish Museums Association Annual Conference, Museums &Memory: Challenging Histories on 22nd February 2014, Waterford 2. Gogan, Liam. 1930 ‘Museums –their place and purpose in National life’ Cork Examiner, 12 February 1930 3. O’ Toole, F. 2014. ‘Culture Shock: Death by a thousand cuts – the terrible way we treat our national library and national museum’ Irish Times, 27 September 2014 4. Siggins, L. 2014. ‘National Museum closing galleries and cutting tours due to shortage of funds’ Irish Times, 22 September 2014 5. Renan, E. (1990) ‘What is a nation?’, Nation and Narration, Bhabha, H.K (ed.), Routledge, London, 19

Introduction1

In a 1930 lecture on the subject of ‘Museums – their place and purpose in National life’, Liam Gogan, of the National Museum of Ireland, declared that museums were, on the whole, not very highly regarded in Ireland and their function not always fully understood here or elsewhere.2

Over eighty years later, it would appear that Gogan’s statement still rings true. In a recent article on the issue Fintan O’Toole lamented “the terrible way we treat our national library and national museum”3 following an earlier Irish Times report that the National Museum was being “forced to close galleries and has had to cut back on educational guided tours due to funding cuts and staff recruitment restrictions”.4

In the context of such statements and in light of the upcoming centenary of one of the most remembered events in modern Irish history – the 1916 Rising – the current article aims to examine the treatment of the Rising in the National Museum in an attempt to examine what this tells us about the Museum and its place in the life of the Irish nation.

According to Ernest Renan the existence of a nation required “the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories”.5 There can be no doubt that the 1916 Rising is one of the most remembered historical events in Irish history and perhaps the one which has been most successful in capturing public imagination. It is an event subsumed in Irish collective memory which has come to play an integral role in defining what it is to be Irish. As such, it has been the subject of numerous commemorative ceremonies, songs, film, poetry and iconic imagery, as well as a plethora of historical research. It has established itself as a focal reference point in Irish society. In 1949, the formal declaration of the Irish Republic took place on Easter Monday and in

6. McCarthy, M. (2012) Ireland’s 1916 Rising: Explorations of HistoryMaking, Commemoration and Heritage in Modern Times, Ashgate, Surrey, 2 7. See Daly, M and O’Callaghan, M. (2007) 1916 in 1966: Commemorating the Easter Rising, Royal Irish Academy, Dublin, McCarthy, M. (2012) Ireland’s 1916 Rising: Explorations of HistoryMaking, Commemoration & Heritage in Modern Times, Ashgate, Surrey, McBride, I. (2001). History and Memory in Modern Ireland, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Higgins, R. (2012) Transforming 1916 Meaning, Memory and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Easter Rising, Cork University Press, Cork 8. Cooke, P. (2012) ‘The National Museum of Ireland – an ideological history’ Australasian Journal of Irish Studies, (12), 82 9. Joye, L. (2013) Displaying the Nation: The 1916 exhibition at the National Museum of Ireland: 1932–1991. Object Matters: 1916 Conference, Dublin 10. The Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation signed off communication to the government relating to the 1916 exhibit as such but they are sometimes referred to in official communications as the 1916 Club. Nellie Gifford-Donnelly also uses the term 1916 Club in letters to the government. It is possible this term refers only to the 1916 Relics Sub-Committee but it is not entirely clear. 2010, in the aftermath of the bailout agreement, a leading Irish newspaper marked the event by printing a mock ‘Proclamation of Dependence’ on its cover page.6 In works relating to the field of memory in an Irish context, in itself a relatively recent phenomenon, it is the Rising which has received particular attention. 7

With this in mind, this article aims to take an alternative viewpoint and to examine the treatment of the Rising – a monumental symbol of Irish nationalism – in our National Museum. It begins with a summary of the history of the exhibition itself before proceeding to use the exhibition as a point of departure from which to examine the Museum’s position as a medium for the transmission and challenging of historical knowledge in Irish society. Finally, it attempts to highlight some of the difficulties faced by the institution from its inception to the present day, to demonstrate how such difficulties are reflected in the Museum’s portrayal of the Rising and also to suggest how the exhibition, one of the Museum’s most successful in attracting public attention, serves as a reminder of the positive impact and the future potential of this national institution.

The 1916 exhibition – a history

Perhaps surprisingly, the collections in relation to the 1916 Rising and the subsequent struggle for independence – collections which Pat Cooke describes as the “only one truly new category of material drawn from the near-contemporary” generated by the Museum in the twentieth century8 – did not come to the Museum as a result of an official policy, but rather as a result of grassroots campaigning and organisation.

The 1916 exhibition owes its existence mainly to the efforts of Nellie Gifford-Donnelly, who was instrumental in procuring articles for display.9 In the mid-1920s, she wrote to Dudley Westropp, keeper of the Art and Industrial Division, suggesting the desirability of collecting and preserving material relating to the Rising and the subsequent War of Independence. While Mr Westropp agreed it would be a good idea, nothing came of the suggestion. In 1932, prompted partly by the international audience which was to be provided by the upcoming Eucharistic Congress and Tailteann Games, Gifford-Donnelly approached the Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation.10 They established a Historical Research Committee tasked with the setting up of an exhibition for the 1916-21 struggle for freedom and appointed Gifford-

11. Clare, A. (2011) Unlikely Rebels: The Gifford Girls and the Fight for Irish Freedom, Mercier, Cork, 252 12. Letter from Nellie GiffordDonnelly Honorary Secretary 1916 Club Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation stamped Oifig an Runaí, Roinn an Oideachais, 21 May 1932, (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 13. Letter from Nellie GiffordDonnelly Honorary Secretary 1916 Club Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation stamped Oifig an Runaí, Roinn an Oideachais, 21 May 1932, (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 14. Letter from Private Secretary to the President to Hon Secretary of the Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation, 20 Dec. 1932 (NAI, DT, s9501A, National Museum: 1916 Collection); Letter from Private Secretary to the President to Mrs N Gifford-Donnelly, Honorary Secretary, 1916 Relics SubCommittee, 27 Nov. 1934 (NAI, DT, s9501A, National Museum: 1916 Collection) 15. Letter from the Department of Education to the Secretary to the President, 11 Dec. 1933 (NAI, DT, s9501A, National Museum: 1916 Collection) 16. See NMIA, AI/90/108 – Plans, correspondence, preparation, details etc in connection with NMI 1916 exhibition 17. While the Museum now deals with the topic of 1916 in its ‘Soldiers & Chiefs’ and ‘Asgard’ exhibitions it is the ‘Understanding 1916’ exhibit which forms the main topic of this article. For more information on the ‘Soldiers & Chiefs’ exhibition see Joye, L and Martinovich, P. (2006) ‘Challenges of context and content: Finding Solutions in a Storyline’, Museum Ireland, (15), 47 Donnelly as its Honorary Secretary.11 The Soldiers’ Federation then made repeated representations to the government in relation to the matter. Gifford-Donnelly wrote to the Department of Education in 1932 stating that the 1916 Club was “anxious to collect articles of interest associated with Easter Week 1916 with the immediate object of having a loan exhibition of them during the Eucharistic Congress and Tailteann Games period”.12 Although the initial request envisaged a temporary exhibition “as the time until the Eucharistic Congress is short” it also had in mind the idea of later facilitating “a permanent loan collection”.13

Following the temporary exhibition, the Soldiers’ Federation wrote to the newly-elected President of the Executive Council, éamon de Valera, in june 1932 “in regard to the permanent housing of the 1916 relics in the National Museum”. 14 Such representations were forwarded to the Minister for Education for consideration. The Minister for Education was “in favour of an arrangement whereby a suitable selection of such relics could be preserved and made available for permanent display to the public” given his awareness “that the temporary exhibition of 1916 Relics held in the National Museum during the past year was of considerable interest to visitors”.15 As a result the exhibition became permanent in 1935 and has evolved slightly with new exhibitions being arranged to coincide with major anniversaries in 1941, 1966, 1991 and 2006. However the form and content of these exhibitions retain many similarities. For example, a perusal of the archives of the National Museum demonstrates that many of the information panels for the 1991 exhibition are the same ones used in 2006.16 In this respect, it is very much to the 1932 exhibition that the present one owes its origins.17

The 1916 exhibition and the position of the national museum

A further surprise may be found in the original reaction of the Museum to the prospect of an exhibition on the Rising. Indeed, not only did the exhibition not stem from those within the institution there were actually some within the Museum who were quite opposed to it. In this respect, the exhibition provides us with quite an interesting insight in terms of the conflict between the memory of the community and that of the institution and their diverging concepts of heritage significance.

In 1932, the year of the opening of the temporary exhibition, Adolf Mahr, then keeper of the Antiquities Division and later Director of the

18. Letter from Keeper of Irish Antiquities to Secretary Department of Education, 30 November 1930 [sic] (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 19. Letter from Keeper of Irish Antiquities to Secretary Department of Education, 30 November 1930 [sic] (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 20. Board of Visitors. Report on the National Museum of Ireland 1934-35, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, 11 21. Cooke, P. (2013) ‘Aetheriality and Materiality: Material Culture and the Myth of 1916’, Object Matters: 1916 Conference, Dublin 22. Letter from Keeper of the Art Division to Secretary, Department of Education, (NMIA, AI/140/001, Hist. and 1916: Exhibitions etc, 1941). Gogan, as Keeper of the Art Division, had been responsible for the preparation of the 1941 exhibit National Museum wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Education to express his views on the 1916 exhibition as he believed “the questions raised in the application by the 1916 Club have some bearing upon the policy of collecting in the Museum”.18 He did believe that there was “considerable scope in Dublin for a purely historical museum which would go in for what one might call patriotic relics” and he noted that many of the objects associated with the Rising were of “sentimental value” and had “a potent importance for the fostering of the national spirit”. However, he reminded the Department that “the kildare Street museum is called Science and Art” before noting that “a snuff box which a dead hero purchased in a shop, or an address of congratulation, or an executioners’ robe or similar relics are neither scientific nor artistic nor illustrating antiquity or industry”.19 Thus Mahr failed to see a place for such objects in the Museum. To Adolf Mahr, the Rising was not the type of event the Museum was designed to commemorate nor was it the memory the Museum was supposed to embody.

It would appear, however, that the Irish public did not agree. In 1935, the Board of Visitors reported that the permanent exhibition, opened to the public on April 16, had attracted “an enormous number of visitors”.20 In 1941, in the middle of ‘The Emergency’, the biggest audience in the Museum’s history attended the opening of the 1916 exhibition which coincided with the Rising’s twenty fifth anniversary.21 In communications between the Museum and the Department of Education on the matter of the extended opening of the exhibition, Liam Gogan noted that “in relation to museum attendance as I have known it for the past 27 years the present attendance of the public has reached extraordinary and entirely unprecedented proportions. No later than yesterday the special collections were crowded to capacity and there was a reasonably good overflow into the general collections, indicating that at last the Irish people have overcome their inertness in regard to their museum facilities”.22

As such, the 1916 exhibition highlights the existence of a significant gap between the memory of the institution and the memory of the community it served in that the type of exhibition which received the greatest public response was not viewed as relevant for or beneficial to the Museum by one of its most influential officials at that time. Indeed, Mahr was not the only person to express such views. Thomas Bodkin’s 1949 Report on Arts in Ireland was also extremely critical of the 1916

23. Bodkin, T. (1949) Report to the Government of Ireland on various Institutions and Activities concerned with the Arts in Ireland, 7 (NAI, DT, s 9501A, National Museum: 1916 Collection) 24. Witcombe, A. (2012) ‘Tensions between World Heritage and local values: the case of Freemantle Prison (Australia)’, in World Heritage Papers, (31), 67 25. Monaghan, N. T. (2000) ‘The National Museum of Ireland’, In Buttimer, N, Rynne, C and Guerin, H (eds), The Heritage of Ireland; Natural, Man-Made and Cultural Heritage, Conservation and Interpretation, Business and Administration, Collins Press, Cork, 404 26. Crooke, E. (2000) Politics, Archaeology and the Creation of a National Museum of Ireland, Irish Academic Press, Dublin, 106 27. For more on museums and national museums see HooperGreenhill, E. (1992) Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge, London, Bourke, M. (2011) The Story of Irish Museums 1790-2000; Culture, Identity and Education, Cork University Press, Cork, Boswell, D and Evans, J. (1999) Representing the Nation: A Reader – Histories, Heritage and Museums, Routledge, London and New York Exhibition viewing it as one which contained objects owing their inclusion to “misconceived sentimentality” and opining that “the presence of this collection in the Museum is due, primarily, to a policy that is inappropriate to an educational establishment of the kind”.23

In this respect, it is interesting to note Andrea Witcomb’s contention that “the process of identifying heritage significance is not neutral and is highly dependent on changing regimes of value”.24 As far as the 1916 exhibition is concerned, the institutional and public responses to the idea of such an exhibition taking place in the Museum highlight the very different concepts about the values the National Museum was and is supposed to embody.

In order to understand the values of the Museum in this respect, it is important to remember that the National Museum existed long before an independent Irish nation did. Indeed, the Museum as we now know it began its life as the Dublin Museum of Science and Art before it was renamed the National Museum of Science and Art, Dublin in 1908. The 1877 Act of Parliament which created the Museum did so by transferring the buildings and collections from private institutions such as the Royal Dublin Society to public ownership.25 This was justified on the basis of the ‘national character’ of the collections in question but in this context national was an expression of the importance laid on a collection that was within the British jurisdiction. Indeed, the 1877 Act also placed the Museum under the control of the Department of Science and Art in South kensington, London. As Elizabeth Crooke points out “the establishment of the Dublin Museum of Science and Art must be seen in the context of political and social reform in Ireland” which included the disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1869 and the passing of university Education (Ireland) Act 1879, steps undertaken “with the aim of creating a progressive educated native middle class eager to participate like the Scots and Welsh in the ruling of the British Empire”.26 Thus it was part of a wider South kensington ethos and South kensington, in this period, can be regarded as a government instrument, to allow the state to retain direction in terms of self-education throughout Britain.27

As such, the original sense of nationalism which the Museum was designed to fulfil or encourage was nationalism within a wider imperial agenda. Therefore, in 1921 – following a very definite change in regime – there was an attempt to review and reform the Museum’s policy. In

28. Professor Lithberg was a Swedish ethnologist and Director of the Northern Museum in Stockholm, which had recently carried out a re-organisation of its activities 29. National Museum – Report of Committee of Enquiry 1928 (NAI, DT, s5392) 30. National Museum – Report of Committee of Enquiry 1928 (NAI, DT, s5392) 31. Bourke, M. (2011) The Story of Irish Museums 1790-2000; Culture, Identity and Education, Cork University Press, Cork, 331 32. National Museum – Report of Committee of Enquiry 1928 (NAI, DT, s5392) 33. Bodkin, T. (1949) Report to the Government of Ireland on various Institutions and activities concerned with the Arts in Ireland, 9-11, (NAI, DT, s9501A, National Museum: 1916 Collection, Jul 1932 – Jan 1954); Institute of Professional Civil Servants. (1973) Fóntas Músaem d’Éirinn/Museum Service for Ireland, Dublin; See Monaghan, ‘The National Museum of Ireland’, 404-12 the early days of the Free State the Department of Education commissioned a report on the role of the Museum so that an appropriate policy could be arrived at in the context of a new nation. The committee was made up of experts in the fields of archaeology, Art and Industry and Natural Science, as well as the chairman of the Board of Visitors, and headed by Professor Nils Lithberg.28 It was requested “to enquire into and report to the Minister for Education upon the main purposes that should be served by the National Museum”.29 Dr Lithberg was of the opinion that the ideal of a National Museum should be to give a consecutive representation of the native civilisation of the country from the time when the human mind first showed its creative power until the present day, and it should embrace all classes which have been or still are components of its society.30

However, only two of the Report’s twelve recommendations were approved, along with the committee’s suggestion as regards the proposed objectives for the National Museum, because they “involved no cost to the Exchequer”. 31 The report was treated in what has been described as a somewhat “cursory” manner, arousing the ire of opposition deputies. However the Minister for Education’s response to such criticisms was that the problem was “a financial one” and the debate was thus concluded.32 Many future reports received the same treatment with very little action undertaken on the basis of their findings.33 Thus, although the Free State undoubtedly created a new regime of values, the Museum operated in limbo. In this respect, a study of the history of the 1916 exhibition mirrors many of the more general difficulties faced by the institution itself from its inception to the present day.

The 1916 exhibition and the difficulties of the museum

While the 1916 exhibition demonstrates the divergent views in relation to the appropriate collection and exhibition policies for the National Museum in an independent Ireland, it also highlights the absence of concrete policies to begin with. Indeed, this is a point made by Adolf Mahr in his correspondence with the Department of Education when he notes that he has “frequently found it a drawback that no settled policy exists in the Museum as to the question of the extent to which relics connected with such political movements in Ireland should be collected”. While his objection to the 1916 exhibition may be open to criticism in some respects it is difficult to refute the legitimacy of his

34. Letter from Keeper of Irish Antiquities to Secretary Department of Education, 30 November 1930 [sic] (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 35. Turpin, John. 1995. A School of Art in Dublin since the Eighteenth Century: A history of the National College of Art and Design, Gill & Macmillan, Dublin, p.182 36. Clare, A. (2011) Unlikely Rebels: The Gifford Girls and the Fight for Irish Freedom, Mercier, Cork, 254 37. Clare, A. (2011) Unlikely Rebels: The Gifford Girls and the Fight for Irish Freedom, Mercier, Cork, 258 contention that many of the objects in the 1916 collection “cannot be called antiquarian and would not therefore come under the scope of my Division”.34

It is worth noting in this regard that the Museum remains very much a Victorian institution, still laid out on the basis of its South kensington origins, part of a system described by George Coffey as far back as 1888 as “a planning machine admirably adapted to smooth off such roughness and irregularities of national and local character”.35 The current 1916 exhibition, somewhat ironically, still sits in a division which is a vestige of the very regime the Rising itself sought to oust, based on a system which perhaps does not provide an appropriate structure in terms of the representation of the Irish nation.

The reactions of the relatives of those involved in the Rising to the 1916 exhibition also highlights certain resource issues with which the Museum had to contend. While many of those with friends or family members involved in the Rising reacted with positivity to GiffordDonnelly’s original attempt to establish the 1916 Collection, there were a number of negative dealings which followed their transfer to the Museum’s custody. kathleen Clarke for example, expressed her belief that Nellie Gifford-Donnelly deserved “great credit for doing a work which will be of immense value to those who come after us” and envisaged a greater collection should museum authorities guarantee the safety of the exhibits.36

However, Museum practices in relation to the management and display of the Easter Week collections proved a source of contention at times for those connected to the Rising. Such practices however, were largely due to shortages of resources in terms of staff and financing but particularly shortages of accommodation following the loss of certain Museum buildings to the Free State parliament in 1922. In 1935, in a letter to the Irish Press, Grace Gifford referred to a letter from de Valera’s private secretary regarding the inadequacy of the exhibition’s accommodation and added: “This letter, coupled with the fact that the collection is now being dealt with by museum officials who had no personal connection with the fighting, speaks for itself”. She concluded by declaring her intention of withholding her late husband’s relics pending proper housing.37 A relative of james Connolly expressed similar dissatisfaction. In 1991 james Connolly Heron wrote to the Museum to enquire as to why items of his great grandfather had not

38. Letter from James Connolly Heron to Michael Kenny, 11 Sept. 1991 (NMIA, AI/92/007, Correspondence, inquiries an matters related to 1916 exhibition, O’ Connell period, Boer War, Nunismatic matters, Irish Kings and High Kings etc.) 39. Letter from Michael Kenny to James Connolly Heron, 16 Oct. 1991 (NMIA, AI/92/007, Correspondence, inquiries an matters related to 1916 exhibition, O’ Connell period, Boer War, Nunismatic matters, Irish Kings and High Kings etc.) 40. Letter from James Connolly Heron to Michael Kenny, 22 Sept. 1992 (NMIA, AI/92/007, Correspondence, inquiries an matters related to 1916 exhibition, O’ Connell period, Boer War, Nunismatic matters, Irish Kings and High Kings etc.) 41. O’Dwyer, Rory. 2010. The Bastille of Ireland: Kilmainham Gaol: From Ruin to Restoration, History Press Ireland, Dublin, p. 62 42. Cooke, P. (2013), ‘Aetheriality and Materiality: Material Culture and the Myth of 1916’ 43. Joye, L. (2013) ‘Displaying the Nation: The 1916 exhibition at the National Museum of Ireland: 1932–1991’ 44. Irish Press, 15 April 1941 45. Newspaper Cutting, (UCDA, Liam Gogan Papers, LA27/309); Valuable Additions to the Historical and 1916 Collections of the NM (UCDA, Liam Gogan Papers, LA27/312) 46. Irish Times, 16 April 1935 been included in the exhibition.38 Michael kenny, curator of the exhibition responded that he had had limited space and “tried to use it in the best way possible”.39 In 1992, Connolly Heron wrote to the Museum to request that since “the Museum did not intend displaying these items in the new exhibition” whether the institution “would have any objection to returning these valuable items to the family”, since “obviously if they are not to be displayed this would seem to be the proper course of action”.40 Following the opening of kilmainham Gaol Museum in the 1960s, some relatives appeared to exhibit a preference for the transfer of their artefacts for display there.41

The 1916 exhibition and the potential and importance of the museum

However, as well as highlighting some of the difficulties of the Museum the 1916 exhibition also serves as a reminder of the positive impact and the future potential of the institution. As Pat Cooke observes “for souvenirs and keepsakes to make their way into the public domain an institutional structure must exist that encourages donations for patriotic or philanthropic reasons”.42

Despite its perceived shortcomings, the Museum remains the largest repository of artefacts relating to the Rising with over 15,000 objects in its collection.43 The artefacts themselves came from a variety of sources, many of them acquired from the families of the leaders in the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, Nellie Gifford was herself connected to the Rising, as a participant and also as sister-in-law of two of the executed leaders. Madame MacBride donated a number of artefacts which were displayed in the 1941 exhibition including “a mether, a wedding gift to herself and Major MacBride; some other presentation pieces and relics of Ingheana na h-éireann, and one of the Irish Brigade flags”.44 Well-known artists also lent or donated some of their works. jerome O’Connor for example donated a death mask of Mrs Pearse while George Collie lent two of his paintings, one entitled ‘Rebirth’ and the other a portrait of Count Plunkett.45 It can be inferred from this that such individuals viewed the Museum as an appropriate setting for the artefacts relating to the events of Easter Week or artefacts viewed as integral to the national story. So, it seems, did the many people who responded to a call in the Irish Times in january 1935 for donations to the collection, such that the paper subsequently remarked of the exhibition that ‘the visitor will be surprised at the quantity of material which has been gathered together since the first appeal was made in january of this year’.46

47. Letter from Nellie GiffordDonnelly Honorary Secretary 1916 Club Irish Republican Soldiers’ Federation stamped Oifig an Runaí, Roinn an Oideachais, 21 May 1932 (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 48. Letter from Adolf Mahr to the Secretary of the Department of Education, 31 May 1932 (NMIA, AI/098/006, Outside Exhibitions 1916 Club) 49. McCarthy, Ireland’s 1916 Rising, p. 397 50. Irish Independent, 13 April 2006 51. McCarthy, M. (2012) Ireland’s 1916 Rising: Explorations of HistoryMaking, Commemoration and Heritage in Modern Times, Ashgate, Surrey, 399 It must be acknowledged that those most interested in protecting the legacy of the Rising chose the National Museum, in particular, as the place in which these objects should be kept and displayed to the public. Indeed, Gifford-Donnelly was quite specific in her intention that the collection “must be safeguarded in some Public Institution in Dublin, for preference, the Museum”.47 It is difficult to ascertain exactly why she exhibited such a preference, it may simply have been, as Adolf Mahr later noted, “owing to the lack of any other institution”.48 Or perhaps there was a feeling among GiffordDonnelly and those involved in the formation of this collection, that housing these objects in the chief national repository would convey further prestige on the Rising itself. Having objects relating to the Rising on display at the National Museum certainly confirmed its status as a national event. For whatever reason, it must be acknowledged that the Museum was where Gifford-Donnelly wanted these relics to go.

Even in more recent years, there is evidence of a strong public perception of the role of the Museum as being the proper place for the housing of objects of national importance and specifically those relating to the 1916 Rising. In 2006, in the lead up to Easter Sunday, the financial value attached to various objects associated with Easter Week rocketed dramatically and “to the annoyance and disappointment of certain citizens…a range of old manuscripts fell into the hands of private collectors, who time and again outbid representatives of state institutions such as the National Library and the National Museum”.49 During an auction on 12 April 2006 advertised as the ‘Independence Sale’, members of ógra Sinn Féin entered the auction rooms and distributed leaflets opposing the sale of items including Thomas Clarke’s last letter. These members were joined in their protest by members of Tara Watch, the organisation involved at the time in a legal action against the State in relation to the Hill of Tara and the M3 motorway. One member of Tara Watch asked ‘what self-respecting State can spend €3 million a day on roads, and not even €1 million for its own national heirlooms’.50 However, the Museum did acquire a rare original copy of the Proclamation from Mr joseph McCrossan, whose grandmother had obtained it from O’Connell Street shortly after the Rising had started.51 The anger generated in this regard, as well as the continuing receipt of donations even in light of their increasing financial value would again suggest the perceived social role of the Museum as the proper place for such objects.

52. Bourke, M. (2011) The Story of Irish Museums 1790-2000; Culture, Identity and Education, Cork University Press, Cork, 331 53. Irish Times, 27 September 2014 54. www.egurian.com; See also Bourke, M. (2012) ‘Future Forecasting and the Challenges Facing Museums’, Challenges Facing Museums On-Site and Online in the 21st Century, Proceedings of the Roundtable and Symposium, National Gallery of Ireland, National Gallery of Ireland, Dublin, 16 55. Letter from Keeper of the Art Division to Secretary, Department of Education, (NMIA, AI/140/001, Hist. and 1916: Exhibitions etc, 1941). Gogan, as Keeper of the Art Division, had been responsible for the preparation of the 1941 exhibit.

Conclusion

As the history of the 1916 exhibition demonstrates, the National Museum has operated with inadequate resources for the entire lifetime of the independent Irish nation. The issue is to a certain extent a financial one, as evidenced above for example by the Minister’s response to criticisms concerning the implementation of the Lithberg report in 1924.52 In 2013 they received €17.9 million. In 2008 the library and the museum got €30.8 million in public funding between them. 53

It is to a certain extent understandable that the financing of the National Museum was not a high priority in the periods of social and financial difficulty which followed a devastating Civil War and the more recent economic collapse on an unprecedented scale. However, the problem is not merely a financial one, the problem is that we need to decide as a nation the role we want our National Museum to fill and, in this respect, it is hoped that the upcoming centenary of the 1916 Rising will provide us with the impetus to do so.

The American museologist Elaine Heumann Gurian contends that a museum that is linked to and engaged with its community will have a community that will want to help, protect and defend it.54 In this respect, it is submitted that the 1916 collection is one of the Museum’s most important assets. As previously mentioned, the 1916 exhibition has been one of the most popular in the Museum’s history and one of the most effective in overcoming the “inertness [of Irish people] in regard to their museum facilities” and reminding them of the importance of this national institution in Irish society and the need to ensure its protection.55

If the upcoming centenary is used to position the Museum as an integral place in which to preserve and challenge the memory of a historical event cherished by many and ignored by few, it may go some way to ensuring that the under-resourcing of an institution of such national importance becomes a historical event in itself.

Emma Libreri is a recent graduate of Trinity College Dublin’s newly developed M.Phil. in Public History and Cultural Heritage and a Trinity scholar of Law and French.