Compare and contrast the ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power Essay Example

Compare and contrast the ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power Essay Example Compare and contrast the ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power Essay Compare and contrast the ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power Essay Essay Topic: A Long Way Gone Girl in Translation Hilarious Medea Metamorphoses Mythologies The Secret Life Of Bees The Tempest A2 English Literature Holiday Homework Assignment: for Mr Majewski: The Tempest by William Shakespeare and Translations by Brian Friel Compare and contrast the ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power. The modern linguist Norman Fairclough said, Language is power, implying that if you want to control a person or people, an event or series of events, or indeed the entire world, and have power over it or them, you must first control language. Controlling language is the key to both the initial act of gaining power, and then maintaining that power. We find examples of this throughout The Tempest and Translations, which share common themes and elements. To tackle a question which requires suggesting how the writers link language and power, it is necessary to look at the plays in just such a thematic way. The first and most obvious area in The Tempest where language is linked with power is the way in which prose and verse is used by different characters to different effect. Most notably, and especially for its irony, Calibans use of verse when Stephano and Trinculo talk in prose reverts the old ideas of rank, whereby people of higher status, (here supposedly the Kings butler and the jester) spoke in verse, and lower classes (the uncivilised Caliban) spoke in prose. Style shift refers to a method of speaking where a person changes their accent or mode of speech depending on whom they are speaking to and how they wish to be perceived by that other person. Consider: STEPHANO Mooncalf, speak once in thy life, if thou beest a good mooncalf. CALIBAN How does thy honour? Let me lick thy shoe. Ill not serve him; he is not valiant. TRINCULO Thou liest, most ignorant monster! I am in case to justle a constable This may well be a statement by Shakespeare that Caliban is not as sa(l)vage as he seems, and indeed, there are other indicators of this in the play, for example, the goodly old man Gonzalos speech in II.1.150-173 echoing de Montaignes essay Of Canibals, especially the Florio translation of 1603. It is probable Shakespeare read this essay, which essentially decries colonialism, and there is a copy of the essay in the British Museum, which appears to have his signature on it. The point of this is that Shakespeare, despite popular opinion that Caliban is the inferior of the trio, gives Caliban power over his superiors through language, and not only that, but power which is clear for any reader to see, sowing the seeds of our suspicions of Stephano and Trinculo the lesser of the three. They are finally confirmed as such in their drunken activities of IV.1, and their ignoring Calibans warnings of: What do you mean To dote thus on luggage? Lett alone, And do the murder first. If he awake, From toe to crown hell fill our skins with pinches, Make us strange stuff. (ll.230-234) As we know, Caliban is proved right, and all three suffer the consequences of their actions in their plot again Prospero. Also in The Tempest, Prospero illustrates his power over Caliban in teaching him how to speak. This once again brings in the idea of colonialism, a theme found in both plays, and one of great significance, because the colonised were often educated or civilised by being taught the colonisers language. We witness this in both plays. In The Tempest, Caliban intelligently recognises the damage being taught Italian has done to him; he says, The red plague rid you | For learning me your language! (I.2.364-5) However, Caliban uses the language he does have as a weapon against Prospero, to hurl insults at him; again, he says You taught me language, and my profit ont | Is, I know how to curse. (I.1.363-4). It is in this way that Caliban tries to regain some power over Prospero through the use of language. In Translations, Manus is the main voice of dissent against the English. In II.1, Manus purposefully talks to Yolland in Irish, when he knows English, in order to exert his authority or a power over him, and illustrate his resistance to the changes which are taking places courtesy of His Majestys government (I.1). Knowing Irish or rather knowing English but not using it is Manus weapon against the English, in the same way that Caliban swearing is his weapon against Prospero. And again, Manus intelligently recognises the damage which is being done to his country and his people through the colonisation, and that soon they will be subjects; but the difference here is that, some 300 years after Shakespeare was writing, Yolland too is able to recognise that Something is being eroded (II.2). Nevertheless, in the time Translations was set (early 1800s), British colonisation and the British Empire were still the pride of the country, as they were beginning to be in Shakespeares day, and were set to remain so for at least another 100 years. It is this that makes Shakespeares quiet, almost hidden voice of disapproval over colonialism through Caliban and Gonzalo dangerous, especially since The Tempest was shown before James Is court. Manus open voice of disapproval is also dangerous; for the English, it casts suspicion on him and implicates him in a crime at the end of the play in which he had no part. Unlike Shakespeare, and thankfully for Friel first publishing in 1981, the power of his characters disapproval through language could remain overt. Moving on, names are very important both in The Tempest and Translations in order to express power. The name Prospero, for example, comes from the Latin verb prosper meaning, to cause to succeed, while the suffix o is the pronoun I. This is a fitting name and since Prospero is the all-powerful wizard of the play, it is appropriate that his name should translate to I cause to succeed. In fact, not only he succeeds in his goal of regaining his dukedom, but also his daughter and Ferdinand succeed in their goal of marriage. Miranda means admired or to be wondered at, thus, on telling Ferdinand her name, he exclaims Admired Miranda! have connotations for the bearer and degrees of power appropriate to the language of their names. In Translations, names are patronymic, that is, characters are called their first name, then the name of their father, for example Doalty Dan Doaltys middle name is his fathers name, and his last name (the same as his first name) is that of his grandfather. The etymology of the name Manus is thought to be Magnus, meaning big, great, hand; Manus is after all his father Hughs right-hand man. Ironically, Manus is not as big or great as he would like; he consistently wishes to take over his fathers classes and get a better job. In this case then, Manus name is not empowering, but rather, making an ironic statement, much like Calibans name (so we have another comparison between the pair here!). Doalty means, I deny, oppose, refuse and renounce! This is a very powerful name and is suitable to Doaltys character; though his resistance to the English is mainly harmless and passive in the first act, and he does not appear in the second, the third act illustrates just how much knowledge has given Doalty power; his friendship with the Doalty twins implicates him in their illegal activities and makes him, like his name, deny, oppose, refuse and renounce the English. Captain Lanceys name and actions, especially in Act Three, reminds us of the powerful lance, a weapon of war and an instrument of death; while the peaceful and endearing Lieutenant Yolland is a combination of old and land, since he loves Ireland, and Yola, the name of the first wave of English settlers in Ireland, who, appropriately, gradually merged with the Irish, adopting Irish language and customs as Yolland does. Indeed, Yolland, undoubtedly unknowingly, adopts through convergence patterns of speech which fit in more closely with those of Owens, Hughs and Maires, seeking to show solidarity and gain approval in his dealings with these others whom he looks up to. For example, he preserves the Irish place names, and in order to woo Maire speaks the Irish place names which he loves and has learnt off by heart. However, when Yolland tries to do this to Manus, it backfires, as he perceives it as patronising (II.1). Lancey retains his authority exactly through opposing this, by emphasi sing the difference between himself and the community. It is this which gives him power. In Act Three for example, he makes Owen translate the Irish place names into English. This is known as maintenance. Both convergence and maintenance are aspects of socio-linguistics which refer to the identify the use of a name affords a place or a person. In addition to this, Lancey and Yolland show us how symmetrical and a-symmetrical systems of address or introductions occur. For example, in I.1., Captain Lancey is introduced as such to make the characters feel his authority, but then addressed by Yolland as George to illustrate the degree of familiarity between the pair. This has wider connotations with perception of social rank and stature for all the characters Im sure they couldnt fail to feel their inferiority, both to a captain, and to a lieutenant who is able to call a captain George. Owens name is perhaps the most important because it gets so confused by the English. Manus exclaims in Act One They call you Roland! They both call you Roland! And Owen, echoing Juliets That which we call a rose, | By any other name would smell as sweet (Romeo and Juliet II.2.) replies Its only a name. Its the same me isnt it? Well, isnt it? At first, even Manus agrees Indeed it is. Its the same Owen but by II.1, just a few days later, and during a process in the play through which Owen changes to become more pro-Irish and anti-English than he was before, he decides that his name is important and explodes at Yolland, demanding to be called by his proper name. Though they both find this absurd at the time and laugh hilariously (an effect of the poteen), implicit in their reaction is a mocking of the name book thereafter, a clear lack of respect for their work, and a cessation of viewing it as important or even necessary. This shows the power of language; it has the ability to change meaning and identities through something seemingly as simple as a name, things which have great effect both on individual and place. The fact remains that renaming the Irish people and places on the part of the English is a powerful resource for a dominant group which wishes to dominate and marginalize their inferiors. This is also a demonstration in the play of multi-faceted identity. Owen faces a crisis of identity when he realise his role in destroying the identity of Baile Baeg (incidentally, this means little home), and wishes to change it. This shift is, again, displayed through the language he uses, and the way he is so much more disrespectful to Lancey at the end of the play than at the start. Though this is all very well, we have no way of actually knowing if the characters know themselves what their names mean; Prospero almost certainly does, because of his vast knowledge and reading, and Manus, Hugh, and Jimmy Jack Cassey or the Infant Prodigy have such a good awareness of Greek and Latin that they almost certainly do as well. This may empower them more than a character like Lancey who may make no connections between his power over the Irish and his name. Additionally, naming and naming practises are a recurrent theme especially in Translations, showing how loss of language is powerful and can be viewed as loss of cultural identity. This has wider implications for social (the marriages), ethical (are Lancey/Prospero justified in their actions at the end of the plays?), political (who is truly Lord over the lands?) and national identities. The writers of The Tempest and Translations also present links between language and power through speeches and rhetoric in the plays. These give power to the speaker through their audiences attention to their words or language. Take the example of Prosperos many speeches in The Tempest. He clearly has a way with words, having, as Miranda puts it, a tale that would cure deafness (I.1.106). Becoming a demagogue means not only that people listen to you when you speak, because of your authority, but also that they actively seek out opportunities of listening to you, and are enraptured when they do. Interestingly though, Prosperos longest speech is a soliloquy in V.1. where he borrows Goldings 1567 translation of the sorceress Medeas speech in the 7th book of Ovids Metamorphoses (particularly lines 265-77). This is even more interesting because it is here, in this speech, that Shakespeare reveals the limitations of his power; that his magic is of the rough variety (I.1.50). This has been hinted at before when we learn that Prospero had to wait for the influences of A most auspicious star (I.1.182) in order to be able to draw the court to the Island and have them under his influences. The non-repentance of Antonio, Sebastian, Stephano and Trinculo also all measure the extent of Prosperos power. While he is able to drive them to distraction, he is unable to make them repent form their sins; he does not truly forgive his brother when he says I do forgive | Thy rankest fault all of them (V.1.131-2), but simply ignores his actions because he cannot do anything about it. Antonio has not changed and Prospero knows it. Given a second chance his brother would do the same. As C. S. Lewis puts it in The Problem of Pain (Chapter VIII: Hell; page 97; published Fount 1968): To condone an evil is simply to ignore it, as if it were true. But forgiveness needs to be accepted as well as offered if it is to be complete: and a man who admits no guilt can accept no forgiveness. In this way, Antonio cannot be forgiven, even if Prospero truly wanted to. Here then is Prosperos failure. It is the point at which his art stops short (The New Penguin Shakespeare, Introduction, p.29, by T. J. B. Spencer), and language is powerless to help him. The point of all this is that his name, which empowers him, his language, which empowers him, and all else, is not the ultimate source of his power; his magic is; and because it is limited, so he is limited. Here then, the writer of The Tempest has presented the links between language and power, but has weakened them through he involvement of another force magic. Importantly though, it is only through language that we learn the involvement of this greater force, and its restrictions. However, it is significant that this is revealed to us in a speech which no one else can hear. It is as if he is keeping it a secret; if no one else knows, or hears, it cannot be generally known. Therefore, he ironically retains the full extent of his power, though admitting its weaknesses, exactly because he chooses to deliver it in a subtle and discrete way in the language he uses, and at a time where no one will remember. He almost slips it in where no one will notice, not even readers who read and re-read The Tempest again and again. The great demagogue in Translations is Hugh. We know he is important even before he enters because the other characters speak about him so much; no fewer than 11 times in effect. His speeches serve a rather different purpose to Prosperos; Hughs speeches, which are altogether shorter, serve as the philosophising force behind the play. Examples include him discussing the nature of Irish: [to Yolland] Youll find, sir, that certain cultures expend on their vocabularies and syntax acquisitive energies and ostentations entirely lacking in their material lives. I suppose you could call us a spiritual people. And again; it us a rich language, lieutenant, full of the mythologies of fantasy and hope and self-deception a syntax opulent with tomorrows. It is our response to mud cabins and a diet of potatoes; our only method of replying to inevitabilities. (Both II.1.) Friel is not original in his ideas however. Irish novelist James Joyce presents similar ideas to Hugh in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916), where the main character, Stephen Dedalus, thinks about how English has replaced Irish in Ireland, but of how the Irish people and writers have learned to master it. Many other Irish literati have taken this theme also in fact, Nobel prize-winning poet Seamus Heaney wrote a poem where he meets the ghost of James Joyce who advises him on art and language (Station Island part XII, pub. Faber Faber, 1984). Clearly then, language for the Irish is a national preoccupation; and it is these cultural-linguistic aspects of language that involve Hugh. The sense he speaks gives him the authority power to be listened to and respected by Yolland, even if he is not completely understood. This is quite an evident link between language and power for Friel, and for us. Eventually, everybody but Lancey realises that by changing the place names from English to Irish and we have already shown how names are so important, because of their meanings they are losing their identities and histories. Yolland insists on Tobair Vree retaining its name, even though indeed, because Owen still knows the story behind it and how it got its name. Following on from the power afforded language through speeches, power is also afforded the speaker through language when they use persuasive discourse. The clearest example of this is the difference between Ariel and Caliban in The Tempest. These two characters share the common interest of their freedom but go about trying to get it in different ways. Most notably, Ariel is sycophantic to Prospero, trying to win his freedom by using subtly persuasive language. For example: All hail, great master! Grave hail, sir! I come To answer thy best pleasure, bet to fly, To swim, to dive in the fire, to ride On curled clouds. To thy strong bidding task Ariel and all his quality. (I.2.189-194) This gains him/her a lot. It makes him/her Prosperos bird, sweet thing and brave spirit, and gets him/her the promise from him that: Do [thy spriting gently] and after two days but from actions, admittedly; but the actions towards Caliban, such as locking him in a rock (I.2.343 ; 361), or making him gather wood in the desert (I.2.366), come from thoughts vocalized in language, used against him. The love scenes in The Tempest and Translations present another type of power through language emotional power. In The Tempest, the love scene is between Miranda and Ferdinand in III.1.. In Translations, the love scene occurs between Maire and Yolland in II.2., and there are some obvious parallels between it and The Tempest. Most obviously perhaps, they are both meetings of two different people from two different cultures. In The Tempest, though Miranda and Ferdinand have no barrier of language such as there is in Translations, because of their shared Italian heritage, they are still from different cultures. Miranda has been brought up in solitude on an island away from all civilisation apart from her father. It has to be explained to her by her father that Ferdinand is not a spirit (I.2.412-7). Meanwhile, the not only civilised but also sophisticated court has surrounded Ferdinand all his life. Despite this he still considers Miranda as the most beautiful and virtuous creature he has ever met. His language bears this out, and has the power to make Miranda fall in love with him Full many a lady I have eyed with best regard, and may a time Thharmony of their tongues hath into bondage Brought my too diligent ear But you, O you, So perfect and so peerless, are created Of every creatures best. (III.1.39-42 ; 46-8) However, language is again not the only power that is at work, and magic contributes as well as language to make Ferdinand and Miranda fall in love Prospero confesses to us that It goes on, I see, | As my soul prompts it. (I.2.420-1) In Translations meanwhile the discrepancies between the cultures of Maire and Yolland are even huger one from the civilised and sophisticated Britain, in a professional job for a decent wage, and the other a poor peasant girl speaking a backward language. In both of these cases though, this difference in their culture only unifies the two people more overcoming their differences is something of the power of their love. The second obvious similarity here is that of their profession of love. Compare Yollands I could tell you how I spend my days either thinking of you or gazing up at your house in the hope that youll appear even for a second to Ferdinands reply to Mirandas now farewell of Maires are particularly powerful because Yolland does not understand them. Indeed, ironically, and sadly since it gives us a hint of the tragic parting that is to come in the Third Act of the play, Maire wants a different thing to Yolland she wishes to go away with him, to England, or to anywhere. Yolland meanwhile wishes to live here, or stay put in Ireland. The power of their language for us as an audience is clear; except, despite that in both plays there are disapproving parties (Lancey, Manus and the Donnelly twins in Translations, and Prospero (supposedly) in The Tempest), the final effect in Translations is for worse, with death, heartbreak and destruction, whereas in The Tempest, it ends in a marriage, and thus becomes at once lighter. Power through language has various effects then, especially in this emotional power context. In Translations, there is a great deal of exploitation of language through translation. The translator is powerful because they have control, and the opportunity, whether used maliciously or otherwise, to change the meaning of the word or speech that they are translating through language. Friel makes quite an unconcealed link between power and language through this in Translations. The clearest example is Owens translation of Lanceys introduction in Act One. He visibly does not translate what Lancey says, sweetening his words so as to not worry the village-people and make the English operation seem more legitimate. Thus: LANCEY [The job is being done] so that the entire basis of land valuation can be reassessed for the purposes of more equitable taxation. OWEN This new map will take the place of the estate-agents map so that from now on you will know exactly what is yours in law. And the disagreement between Manus and his brother that: MANUS You werent saying what Lancey was saying! OWEN Uncertainty in meaning is incipient poetry who said that? MANUS There was nothing uncertain about what Lancey was said: its a bloody military operation, Owen! Finally, it is necessary to discuss the different forms of language and how the playwrights have used them to illustrate dramatically the links between language and power. The sociolinguistic aspects of language have already been mentioned when the importance of names in presenting links between language and power was discussed, so we need not go into any more detail of that here. Language, Society and Power (ed. Thomas and Wavering) suggests 5 main aspects of language excluding socio-linguistics. The first aspect is cultural-linguistics. This refers to the aspects of language which are cultural, such as names of places which are specific, and certain turns of phrase which would not be found elsewhere. In Act three, Hugh wisely recapitulates that: It is not the literal past, the facts of history, that shape us, but the images of the past embodied in language We must never cease renewing those images; because once we do, we fossilise. Though seeming to advocate the actions of the English here, Hugh is actually just confirming that every culture will have a different language because they have different pasts, and the past is captured in language. He explains why language has power in every culture because it makes the culture evolve it is the images of the past embodied in language that shape us and stop us from fossilising. Also, the person controlling the language, controls the culture, and thus the people, and the history as well and that is a lot of power! In The Tempest, Prospero too involves himself in the cultural linguistic aspects of language when he teaches Caliban his language. Though this may be excusable because a noble-man of those times would have known no better than that their language was superior, he is never the less, by stripping Caliban of his own language which has its own meanings and past, stripping him of his identity; and here then is his power. Perhaps he would agree that We must never cease renewing those images; because once we do, we fossilise. Perhaps the question here needs to be, what is wrong with fossilising? The second aspect is aesthetics. In Translations, the Infant Prodigy is the character most interested in the aesthetics of language, or how language sounds, and the beauty of language. He is not interested in language as a form of communication, and is therefore not really interested in the Anglicisation going on around him. It will not affect him because he probably will not be around long enough to see it! This is a type of power and he is completely untroubled and unsuspecting at all time, because he appreciates language for what it is, as a poetry, rather than as a weapon in the way Manus or Lancey is using it. Yolland is the other character in Translations who loves the poetry of the language, except he prefers Irish to Greek and Latin. In II.1. he repeats the Irish places after Owen, allowing their sound to wash over him like a yogic mantra. This empowers him to speak with Maire and gives them common ground during the love-scene. In The Tempest, it is the spirits who most clearly use language for its beauty and its sound. Apart from Ariels common speech, the masque (IV.1.) is an amazing example of saying nothing in endless sentences and making it sound pretty (F. R. Leavis commentary on Henry James comes to mind)! Essentially, the plot of the masque is very simple but it is drawn out to show off special effects and elaborate costumes which were the delight of the court in James Is time. The New Penguin Shakespeare Commentary on The Tempest (p.167) explains: The verse of the masque is set off from the that of the play proper by its formality and deliberate artifice. It is filled with archaic or uncommon words and invokes a deliberately unreal, remote, mythological world [much like Jimmy Jack]. At the same time, it contrives to admit glimpses of a genuine English countryside [just as Jimmy compares ancient Greek goddesses to the Irish parish girls], and to maintain a delicate balance between those ideas of warmth and increase appropriate to a betrothal ceremony. The third aspect is communication. Language is the most important element in communication, not only what we say, but how we say it, in what tone of voice and what context. In Translations, Sarah embodies communication. After learning to speak when manus was there, she knows that language wont come back to her once hes gone because the lines of communication between the English and the Irish have broken down. This is shown most clearly in Act Three. Owen tries to persuade her otherwise but Sarah is quite accepting and shakes her head, slowly, emphatically, and smiles at Owen. The she leaves. (Stage directions). Being not able to speak is in some ways even more powerful than being able to speak. Precisely because Sarah is so quiet we notice her by her absence; she is conspicuous by her silent presence. It is a powerful symbol that communication should be silent for most of the time. Interestingly, Sarah is dominated by everyone in the play, Manus, Owen, and then Lancey who is very dem anding of her. In The Tempest, there is more than one example of broken communication; between Caliban and Prospero/Miranda, and Prospero and Antonio. The hostilities between these characters are clear throughout the play and illustrate the power of hate and jealousy. It isolates Caliban and turns his frustrations outwards to plotting against Prospero, and it makes Sebastian plot against his own brother in the same way Antonio did against his. This is expressed through language and action: Prospero says of Caliban that he is: A devil, a born devil, on whose nature Nurture can never stick; on whom my pains, Humanely taken, all, all lost, quite lost. And as with age his body uglier grows, So his mind cankers. I will plague them all Even to roaring. (IV.1.189-193) The fourth aspect is non-verbal communication (NVC), opposed to linguistic communication as above. Often, body language can show us things that speech hides, and can give off contrary signals, and what cant be done through language can be done through physical appearance and action. Both Friel and Shakespeare keep tight reigns on their characters movements through stage directions. Friel describes his characters through from what they wear, to how old they are, what type of hair they have, what their characters are, as well as foibles such as reacts physically when embarrassed or pleased [referring to Doalty]. Yolland and Maire present the clearest example of NVC in II.2. where they cannot speak each others language and therefore must rely on their actions. Here, the author has the power through language to make his characters whatever he wills. The Tempest meanwhile is Shakespeares most heavily directed play, perhaps because it was first in the Folio of 1623 and needed to give a good impression to someone picking up a book. The New Penguin Shakespeare Account of the Text (p.179) confirms: The result, neatly and intelligently divided into Acts and scenes, equipped list with a of characters and meticulously punctuated throughout, stands as perhaps the cleanest of Shakespeares texts. The fifth and final aspect is miscommunication, or the potential for it. In Translations, Owen clearly mistranslates Lanceys speech at the end of Act One, so that the people (except those who understand English such as Manus and Hugh) are unaware that the English are performing a bloody military operation. This reinforces the power he yields through his use of language. In II.2., Maire thinks she may have said something rude when Yollands reaction to her perfect recitation of In Norfolk we be sport ourselves around the Maypole is shock, and this shows the power language has when we use it and do not know what we are saying. It also shows the importance of audience; much of what we say, no matter our intentions, is perceived differently than how we anticipated. And finally, there is a potential for miscommunication in changing the place names so that they loose their meaning. In The Tempest meanwhile, there is miscommunication in the comical scene in III.2 when an invisible Ariel enters and causes havoc for poor Trinculo who is accused of reproaching Caliban for lying when really it is not him at all! Enter Ariel, invisible CALIBAN As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer, that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island. ARIEL Thou liest. CALIBAN (to Trinculo) Thou liest, thou jesting monkey, thou I would my valiant master would destroy thee! I do not lie. STEPHANO Trinculo, if you trouble him anymore ins tale, by this hand, I will supplant some of your teeth. TRINCULO Why, I said nothing. (III.3.41-50) This is particularly good for a demonstration of language and power because this misunderstanding, though disguised because of humour, shows how violent Stephano can get towards one of his best friends, threatening first to hang him from the next tree (l.36), then later to knock out his teeth (using, appropriately, the word supplant, like he wished to overtake the island), and then, later still, threatens to cut him open (l.70) and then he actually hits him (l.77). There are many ways in which the writers of The Tempest and Translations have dramatically presented the links between language and power; through use of prose and verse by different characters, through education and colonisation, through use of names and renaming, through speeches and rhetoric, through persuasive language and through love scenes, through translation and through the six different forms of language. All these just begin to show the varied and skilled ways in which William Shakespeare and Brian Friel, in their own ages and in their different plays, share common elements and themes which make their works comparable in just such a thematic way.