Dimaid Ferriter Judging Dave Sparknotes

In this essay I intend to give a detailed critique of Judging Dev written by Diarmaid Ferriter. In my researching of the topic further I have found that a critique of the entire book would not be possible as it would be ambiguous and vague. Taking this into account I therefore have decided to pick one chapter of the book and give a more detailed and concise critique of this chapter. I feel I will be able to go into more detail about the content and way in which it was written. I have chosen the chapter ‘I would have gone and said, “Go to the devil, I will not sign” ‘. I chose this chapter for many different reasons. I feel that this chapter is well written, controversial and will always remain relevant within Irish history and among Irish historians.

It is my opinion that Ferriter takes a sympathetic and somewhat critical view of Dev and poses questions of throughout the chapter. He asks why Dev did not go as his ‘fastidious care with regard to words and phrases’ (Ferriter, 2007) was needed in London. And why did he send the unexperienced cabinet to London? As a piece of literary history it is very well written as he uses many examples of primary sources to give a detailed account of what happened. He also has a somewhat unique interpretation of the events described and this is where the criticism from other historians, mainly Tim Pat Coogan, arises. I would have to agree with Coogan’s idea that Ferriter ‘judging methodology is twofold and does not consist merely of straightforward judgments of his own’ (Coogan, 2008) Ferriter throughout the book. He uses a lot of pro-Dev comments and sources to paint a brave and noble image of Dev, a man who was willing to anything for his country. This in my opinion shows De Valera’s weaknesses as a leader as he was too set in his ways and was never willing to compromise. He allowed his own bias dictate how the party was

When reading the chapter first I felt that Ferriter used a lot of primary sources suggesting the bad that Dev had done at this time. But upon reading the chapter again along with reading a review by Tim Pat Coogan as well as listening to podcasts involving Coogan it becomes clearer that Ferriter is actually using these primary sources to defend Dev. We can see that Ferriter uses the sources as a platform to defend Dev. He has a much mirrored view and almost always comes out with something positive to say about De Valera. He seems to pick pro-Dev, pro-fianna fail documents and comments to show the leader of the anti-treaty movement in a brighter light. He does criticise some decisions made by Dev, well when I say criticise I merely mean question. I have to agree with Coogan’s comments of Ferriters work being twofold and not consisting of his own judgements. In my opinion Ferriter has the skill to trick the reader into believing what he wants them to believe. He does this by the style in which his work is written. It is an extremely well written piece of history and the fact that so many primary sources are used it lures the reader, myself included, into thinking that his work is unbiased and fair. But it is only when you step back that