A Millstreet Miscellany (3) - Aubane Historical Society

this important assessment, but without informing the reader. It contained relevant
information on British assessments of Irish people that contradicted the view Hart promoted.
These issues (that are not exhaustive of the credibility issues) have undergone public scrutiny in:
1998 (Brian Murphy, The Month),
2003 (Meda Ryan, Mercier Press),
2005 (Peter Hart, Murphy, Ryan, Niall Meehan, Andres Boldt, Sean Kelleher and
Manus O'Riordan, Mar-Apr to Sep-Oct 05, History Ireland, four issues),
2006 (John Regan, History Vol. 91 (301), Jan 06; Meehan, Hart, John Borgonovo,
Irish Times, Jun 23, 28, Jul 3, 14, Irish Times),
2007 (Ryan, History Vol. 92 (306) , Apr 07; Murphy, Aubane; Borgonovo, IAP
and History Ireland, May-Jun 07),
2008 (Meehan and Murphy, Aubane; Brendan O'Leary, Dublin Review of Books),
2009 (Joost Augusteijn, March-April 09, History Ireland).
In the two publications in which Hart participated (History Ireland, 05, Irish Times 06), he
failed to address the criticisms - please see Andres Boldt's comment on this aspect in the Sep-Oct 05
History Ireland. In the Irish Times in June 2006, in reply to Niall Meehan, Hart stated that he had
never used the term 'ethnic cleansing 1
with regard to the War of Independence in the South of
Ireland. It had to be pointed out to Hart that he indeed had used this term in 1997 and in 2003.
Joost Augusteijn, in the March-April 2009 History Ireland, made the point that Hart has not
answered the serious criticisms and that he has taken them too lightly. Professor Brendan O'Leary
made the same point in the Dublin Review of Books. O'Leary wondered how 'this ghost', Hart's
Kilmichael tour guide, 'walked the walk', and 'talk[ed] the talk' ('A Long March',
http://www.drb.ie/more_details/08-09-25/a_long__march.aspx, see notes 72, 73).
While these criticisms relate mainly to matters of fact, Hart's interpretation of sectarian intent
within the Irish War of Independence largely depends on the matters of fact in dispute that he has
failed to address adequately. Hart has promised on various occasions, both public and private, to
address them. No response that directly addresses the points in contention has emerged.
In such circumstances your decision to choose a scholar whose work has been discredited
without response is a strange one. We ask you and Mercier Press to re-consider it. Work produced
by this author will be tainted by his inability to address serious criticisms. The decision undermines
public confidence in the profession of history and it will bring Mercier Press into disrepute. It will
surprise serious scholars of history. It may be that, in these circumstances, you might impose on
Professor Hart a requirement to address the criticisms prior to permission being granted to publish
his introductory remarks. That would be inadequate in our view - there are other historians whose
work is not tainted to this extreme degree. The choice of historian is yours, or perhaps Mercier's
(please clarify). That is not our business. However, we reserve the right to comment on the
adequacy of the choice made, as in this case. As I have explained, the choice made at this juncture
by you/Mercier in the context of this book will be regarded widely as unacceptable and unwise. We
suggest that a historian is chosen who has not made impossible claims and one who has not
engaged in systematic censorship.
I await your response and that of Mercier Press with great interest.
Yours sincerely
Jack Lane
cc EoinPurcell, commissioning@mercierpress.ie
Sharon O'Donovan, info@mercierpress.ie
49