Making History by Brian Friel

A pivotal moment
(pp. 34 to 35)

Interpretative Frameworks (AO4) and Language, Form and Structure (AO3)

Just as the 1601 Battle of Kinsale represents a ‘pivotal moment of failure of Irish
independence’, O’Neill’s long speech is a pivotal moment of a play in which action
happens off-stage. It occurs towards the end of Act 1, with the off-stage battle occurring
between the two acts. Crude, but worthy of note, is the fact that mathematically, in
terms of the play on the page, these pages form the mid-point of a 71-page play.

Once again, a useful interplay between the language, form and structure of this speech
(AO3) and interpretative and critical frameworks (AO4) helps to deepen understanding.
We will look once again at the notion of the Marxist view of the historical process, as
well as a (post) colonial reading of this particular speech.

When Friel was interviewed by the BBC about the play, he outlined how he was attracted
to ‘… O’Neill’s capacity to dart into and out of his Gaelic consciousness and his English
consciousness, his Gaelic experience and his English experience. He used them both but
he allowed neither one to obsess him.’

This duplicity can be explored with reference to a Marxist account of the historical
process. Karl Marx wrote that history follows a ‘dialectical’ process. In any given social
or political situation there will be a conflict of two opposed forces, the thesis and the
antithesis. When these two forces collide, a new situation – the synthesis, is produced.
This process of continual conflict produces change and shapes historical events.

So the term seems enlightening if we reflect on Friel’s interrogation of the historical

process, especially if we focus on O’Neill the character, then ‘zoom in’ further to this
particular speech.

If we interpret meaning and dramatic interest in the play as emanating from a series of
bi-polar ‘opposed forces,’ you should find it useful to ‘map’ some of these forces. You
may start with the character of O’Neill himself if you like, but remember to broaden out,
covering other characters and the play’s historical context. Don’t forget the literal – the
opposition of forces, albeit off-stage, is the historical event around which the play’s
dramatis personae engage in a concentration of debate and discussion.

© www.teachit.co.uk 6091.doc Page 1 of 5

Making History by Brian Friel

Here are one or two ideas to start you off, but see how far you can extend this interpretation.
Continue to ‘flesh out’ your ideas with textual reference and comment based on your
reading of Act 1.

Irish (Gaelic) English

Mary’s attitude towards Hugh (p. 25) Stage direction p. 19 – ‘Mabel is sitting
embodies the powerful myths that alone doing complicated lacework.’
surround notions of identity in this act
‘… I have seen him eating with his bare
hands.’ Pronouns – ‘they/them’ and
‘we/us.’

Language reinforces this (‘… the Gaelic Farming methods – imposing order –
wilderness,’ ‘… you know how herbs, honey, fruit trees.
capricious we Gaels are’ p. 26).

‘Impulse, instinct, capricious genius, or ‘calculation, good order, common sense,

brilliant improvisation’ the cold pragmatism of the Renaissance
mind’ (p. 28).

Catholicism Protestantism

Public Life Private Life

etc.

How many more of these ‘opposed forces’ can you find? If these are magnetic forces that
pull in opposite directions, where would you place the main protagonists? Consider O’Neill
and Mabel first.

The second interpretative framework builds on the idea of these ‘opposed forces’ and should
help with this scene. It is based on the idea of Ireland as a colony. To explore these ideas
further, you will be guided through the ‘Post-Colonial Web’ one of a number of literature
sites whose ‘webmaster’ is Professor Landow of Brown University, USA. The main website
is:

www.postcolonialweb.org

However, I will suggest a pathway through which makes it easier to link with Making
History.

First, let’s get some terms defined. What about colonies, and colonisation? Have a look at
the definition on the page:

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/colondef.html

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/poldiscourse/mallya1.html

© www.teachit.co.uk 6091.doc Page 2 of 5

Making History by Brian Friel

Critics are divided over the question of whether Ireland can properly be called a colony, and
whether Friel is a post-colonial writer. However, we do not need to get ‘bogged down.’
Clearly, the imperial process is very important, and the fact that ‘the text sustains a complex
web of metaphor relating to race, culture and identity’ is supportive of the merits of taking
this post-imperial critical approach to the play. We have already seen, through the
characterisation of Mary, how the imperial process is based on the determined imposition of
one set of values, and the suppression and denial of another. The metaphor used here is one
of pasture and husbandry. English farming methods are imposed because, according to
Nesta Jones, she equates ‘pastoral farming’ with ‘neglect of the land,’ denouncing the Gaelic
Irish as uncivilized, ‘And a savage people who refuse to cultivate the land God gave us have
no right to that land.’

I have said that the Marxist view of the historical process, with its ‘opposed forces’ and the
post-colonial approach are very much related. In what ways is this in evidence in Act 1?

One particular set of pages which should help with your answer to the question above is
entitled ‘The Double and the Center …’ Although based on the writers Naipaul and Phillips,
the ideas can be very usefully applied to Making History.

Read the introduction:

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/caribbean/themes/double1.html

Now read ‘Textual Doubles.’ Think about the discussion of history, here, and apply the
principles to Friel’s exploration of the historical process in Making History:

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/caribbean/themes/double6.html

Finally, read the conclusion:

http://www.postcolonialweb.org/caribbean/themes/double7.html

Back to AO3

If you are feeling that we are diverging away from the text, and from the ‘pivotal point’ in
question, you are probably right. However, it shouldn’t take us long to see how these
interpretative approaches and the language, form and structure of this extract itself
combine very effectively.

In terms of the dialectical process, O’Neill is right in the middle. For Friel, this makes his
identity appropriately complex, since identity is a major theme throughout Friel’s work, and
seldom is it straightforward. He has already playfully teased Mary, alluding to his ‘dilemma’
and duplicitous position in his series of questions beginning on p. 27 (‘Do I keep faith with
my oldest friend and ally?… You wouldn’t disagree with that, would you?’ p. 28) Humour,
again, is double-edged here. What is your interpretation of the humour in this speech?

© www.teachit.co.uk 6091.doc Page 3 of 5

Making History by Brian Friel

The immediate context of O’Neill’s speech

At this point in the play, Lombard has just read a ‘Bull of Indulgence’ from Rome. A
crescendo of excitement has been growing as the notion of war against the English has been
translated into a ‘holy crusade.’ According to Lombard, ‘we are no longer a casual grouping
of tribes but a nation state united under the Papal colours’ (p. 33). Such a translation is
reminiscent of Brutus’s role in the conspiracy to murder Julius Caesar. Brutus uses
language to elevate the plight of the conspirators, from savage ‘butchers’ to ‘sacrificers.’ The
difference here, though, is that Brutus is not the politically astute figurehead and
spokesman, like Lombard, and his language and action are inextricably linked. Lombard’s
use of language lacks this naïve idealism and sincerity; his tone is much more propagandist.

What is expected from O’Neill at this point is a rousing, inspirational speech, befitting his
public role of prominence and conjoining Lombard’s quasi-objective magniloquence and a
much more personal, subjective account of the enemy. But just as Shakespeare’s depiction
of Brutus’s anguish when he tells us, of Caesar, ‘I have no personal cause to spurn at him but
for the general,’ shows us that public and private attitudes do not always converge
harmoniously, Friel also presents us with a divided character. However Shakespeare
presents the private Brutus contemplating the conspiracy using the device of the soliloquy,
then the public figure translating the conspiracy linguistically into something worthy and
honourable. What Friel does is to explore further the complexities of a character in a
similar position by fusing private and public into the language, form and structure of a
single speech.

At the outset, Friel builds expectation with the repeated ‘silences’ of the stage directions, as
O’Neill ‘walks slowly across the room.’ Friel is exact in O’Neill’s subsequent delivery:

‘Then when O’NEILL finally speaks, he speaks very softly, almost as if he were talking to
himself’ (p. 34).

This sets up the notion of a figurehead, whose public and private personae oscillate
dramatically. The audience can feel Lombard poised with pen in hand to note every
glorious detail of this pivotal moment in history, and to mould it into a ‘narrative’ of epic
proportions. The stage has been set for the heroic leader to rally the troops. But O’Neill,
and history, it seems aren’t that convenient or straightforward, and this is why Brutus’s role
in the conspiracy springs to mind rather than a Henry V on the eve of battle.

The insular ‘whisper’ that follows has something of the quality of a soliloquy about it, but
arguably, it is less ‘public’ even than that. It is a speech that evolves. Friel uses the
connective ‘And …’ to emphasise a degree of spontaneity as a picture begins to emerge of
O’Neill’s time in England.

It is here, then, that we see the oscillations between the insider and the outsider, the public
and private personae, the Gaelic chieftain with the Renaissance upbringing, with an
emphasis firmly on restraint and ‘calculation.’ Friel’s achievement is to concentrate such
complexities into one hugely significant speech.

© www.teachit.co.uk 6091.doc Page 4 of 5

Making History by Brian Friel

Further AO3 points to consider with reference to interpretations:

The last in the list of ‘topics for discussion’ is ‘The Planting of Foreign Countries.’ We build
up to the last in the list, which is the most ironic of all the topics. Why?
If you are finding that question difficult to develop in detail, look back at the conclusion of
the post-colonial pages on ‘The Double and the Center.’ The opposed forces here are
entirely to do with the presentation of O’Neill as ‘colonizer vs. colonized, center vs. margin.’

O’Neill says ‘I was conscious not only that new ideas and concepts were being explored and
fashioned but that I was being explored and fashioned at the same time.’ The use of these
passive verbs is important, since another tension (not only here, but in the whole play) is
between the opposed forces of the active and the passive. Despite developing the
overwhelmingly strong feelings of the ‘insider’ (‘I loved them both very much’) O’Neill
remains the ‘outsider.’

There is a form or structure to this speech which, in a sense, is a microcosm for the play as a
whole. Just as we feel O’Neill has failed to take his cue to rouse and inspire those around
him, his speech seems to grow in intensity as he arrives at ‘the night before I left Lady
Mary.’ The metaphorical epithet of ‘Fox O’Neill’ links with the notion of the Gaels’ ‘wild’
disposition, and together with the ‘relentless’ pulsing of ‘that trivial little hurt’ we are
expecting this to be the catalyst which reminds us clearly which side O’Neill is on. But, Friel
uses bathos to ‘pull the rug from underneath us’ as the speech fizzles out into an ending
which is as subdued as it is abrupt.

So, the duplicitous nature of O’Neill runs to the very heart (literally!) of his complex
identity. The monstrous Lombard restates his purpose in the play’s concluding dialogue,
asserting that:

‘That’s what I’m doing with all this stuff – offering a cohesion to that random catalogue of
deliberate achievement and sheer accident that constitutes your life. And that cohesion will
be a narrative that people will read and be satisfied by’. (p. 67)

At this pivotal point, Friel shows us the illusion of the cohesive narrative, prompts us with
the crescendo of a seemingly irrelevant set of personal anecdotes to expect a public rallying
call, but then, after an uncomfortable pause, leaves us crashing down to earth. Despite the
inevitable propulsion towards war, the private O’Neill with all his complexities and
contradictions, including his marriage, refuses to be swept away by the crudely delineated
and simplistic nature of opposition forces, which, whilst providing a ‘narrative that people
will be … satisfied by,’ will not tell his ‘truth.’ This, then, is a pivotal moment for the
audience, too. As O’Neill darts ‘into and out of his Gaelic consciousness and his English
consciousness, his Gaelic experience and his English experience,’ we have to accept that we
are not watching a ‘historical drama,’ as carefully shaped as one of Lombard’s narratives,
but a play about history, the continuing process. The oscillations between the ‘center’ and
the ‘margin,’ between the ‘colonizer’ and the ‘colonized’ in the play, are part of a much
bigger picture. Therein, we see opposite forces pulling simultaneously and continuously
within the consciousness of individuals, and on a much more panoramic scale. This, to
Friel, then, is the ‘slow, sure tide of history’ (p. 28).

Textual page references are based on the Faber edition.

The critical work referred to is:

Jones, N., Brian Friel: Making History, Dancing at Lughnasa, Philadelphia, Here I Come! Translations,
(Faber Critical Guides) 2000
© www.teachit.co.uk 6091.doc Page 5 of 5