Each and every day around the world, there is someone somewhere losing, maintaining or trying to gain power. Whether it is a dictator quelling an uprising or a United States senator giving a speech promoting his or herself, the pursuit of power around the world is a constant happening. To the layman, it would seem that the way a person gains power would be through force and luck. In terms of a dictatorship, the ruler would fight his way to the top through the use of various forms of force. In a democracy, a person with power might have just been lucky enough to be elected to their new position. However, to those who delve deeper into that simple yet complicated concept of power, its acquisition, maintenance, and ceding all boils down to one factor: language. The use of language as a means to control people is not a new idea. Thomas Hobbes was perhaps one of the first to effectively put this concept into writing back in 1651. His work, Leviathan, has several chapters largely focused on just how important and ingrained into humans’ very being language is. George Orwell addressed the relationship between political power and language much more thoroughly in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language. However, to completely understand Orwell’s work, one must first explore Hobbes’ ideas. Hobbes begins his work with his four main functions of language. The first is that language is the main forum people use to acquire knowledge. Without language, it would be impossible to be able to apply fully descriptive terminology to any item or idea, making it impossible to fully understand. The second, Hobbes says, is simply that language is the only means for knowledge to be shared among other people. Third, language provides a means to make intentions clear and to ask for help from others. And finally, language can be used for pleasure or fun (Hobbes 1-2). Each and every one of these functions could potentially be used effectively in the realm of politics in an effort to gain or maintain power. As Hobbes’ goes on to say however, each function does have its “correspondent abuses.” First, he says, men can deceive themselves with their words. Second, they can deceive others. Third, men can “declare that to be their will which is not,” as Hobbes puts it. More simply, men can say one thing and mean another. And fourth, words can be used to hurt others. Interestingly, these “correspondent” dysfunctions also can feasibly be used for the purposes of pursuing political power (Hobbes 2). In fact, there are countless prime examples of each of them being used at one point or another in history. First, let us further examine Hobbes’ main functions of language. The first three main functions tie together exceptionally well in painting the picture of language’s usage in the political sense. Language provides the means for rulers to fully and completely convey directives to subordinates and the citizenry. It also allows a forum for rulers to make t