An analysis of the multiple publications relating to the career of Hugh O'Neill that appeared during the middle decades of the twentieth century reveals the extent to which authors who were then writing about the past permitted their interpretations to be influenced by the politics and prejudices of their own time. It is then demonstrated that the various positions then adopted by competing authors had been influenced also by polemics from the past. A study of the place accorded to Hugh O'Neill by authors writing in the nineteenth, eighteenth, seventeenth and even the sixteenth century shows that they too were divided over whether O'Neill should be considered the forger of an Irish nation or a champion of Catholicism, or an ingrate who had betrayed the crown that had rescued him from obscurity. This leads to a discussion of academic writing of more recent decades and the efforts of scholars who have engaged on fresh research to better comprehend what motivated Hugh O'Neill at various junctures in his career, even as he remains one of the more enigmatic personalities in Ireland's history.

对 20 世纪中叶出现的与休·奥尼尔的职业生涯有关的多种出版物的分析揭示了当时写过去的作者在多大程度上允许他们的解释受到政治和偏见的影响他们自己的时间。然后证明，竞争作者当时采取的各种立场也受到过去争论的影响。对 19、18、17 甚至 16 世纪作家对休·奥尼尔的地位的研究表明，他们在奥尼尔是否应该被视为爱尔兰国家的伪造者或天主教，或者一个背叛了将他从默默无闻中解救出来的王冠的忘恩负义的人。