Revisiting or inventing history ? : the cases of Brian Friel's making history (1988)‎ and Mahmoud Diyab's gate to conquest” (1971)‎

Abstract EN

Representation of history in literature has always proved problematic due to the fact that authors find themselves in the dilemma between depicting an impressive “narrative” or a historically authentic account.

In an article entitled “Literature writing History”, prominent Shakespearean scholar John Drakakis queries ”Is the writing of history a recording of the event, an act of referential fidelity whose authenticity supersedes matters of epistemology or even teleology, and for whom language is primarily instrumental, a transparent window onto objective truth? ”(28).

Moreover, in his seminal book Inventing Ireland, Declan Kiberd points to “the crisis of representation”(633) of historical figures and events for “it is human nature to name as truth what is usually the narrative most flattering to ruling vanity”(633).

The two selected plays in this paper Mahmoud Diyab's Gate to Conquest(1971) and Brian Friel's Making History(1988)addresstheissueofhistoricalrepresentation, as”the best possible narrative” as Archbishop Lombard, the biographer of Hugh O'Neil's life urges, or as “authentic” fact.

O'Neil's controversial status due to his double loyalties to England and Ireland may have led historians to tamper with some details to offer an impeccable history, which Friel attempted to redress by offering an authentic historical representation.

Similarly, Gate to Conquest(original title Bab el Futuh) attempts to offer a “truthful reconstructed reading of the past” not as it actually happened, but rather as an ideal of what should have happened.