globalization, english and 'other' languages

Social Scientist

Globalization, English and 'Other' LanguagesAuthor(s): U. R. AnanthamurthySource: Social Scientist, Vol. 37, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 2009), pp. 50-59Published by: Social ScientistStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27748597 .Accessed: 30/03/2014 08:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:55:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Globalization, English and 'Other* Languages*

It is my privilege to share the honour of Sumitra Chishti Memorial Lecture with luminaries and committed intellectuals and original thinkers like Prof. Prabhat Patnaik, Dr. Syeda Hameed and Sri P. Sainath who had given these Lectures earlier. I am not academically as

competent as the others, but I have a distinction of a sentimental nature. I studied in the same Maharaja's College, Mysore, as the late

distinguished economist Dr. Sumitra Chishti did and obtained my Honours in English Literature about the same time she finished her M.A. I got her photograph from her daughter and got back my memory. Particularly when I saw her daughter I could get back the

memory of what she was like. But coming from a village I was too shy to

speak to girls in those days. She was a year younger than me and I am

grateful to her family to have brought her back to me. I rejoice that I had a distinguished intellectual and creative thinker as one of my contemporaries and I speak today to pay my respects to her.

I have chosen to speak about languages and literature and relate my concerns with those of Sumitra Chishti with whom I share my opposition to the growing hegemonistic trends in all spheres of life

including language and literature. Since I am a story writer, let me tell some stories to illustrate what I want to convey.

Hanuman in Ramayana is known for his verbal skills and his

diplomacy. A great Kannada writer and teacher of the old school comments humorously when Rama praises him for his excellent use of

Samskrutha; it is like an Englishman praising an Indian for his use of

English; the north Indian Rama praises the south Indian Hanuman. As a humorous remark this is all right but not strictly so, for Samskrutha had no particular territory. It had homes everywhere and therefore homeless too. Like English today. The language of Cosmopolis, to use a word that Professor Sheldon Pollock has made famous, has home

everywhere and therefore homeless too. Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Oriya, Kannada - all our Bhashas have particular homes. These are languages that do not travel unlike English today, or Samskrutha and Latin in the ancient times. But English produced a great Shakespeare when it was a

^Fourth Sumitra Chishti Memorial Lecture organized by Social Advancement and

Development Trust, New Delhi.

C rd

C <

Of

D

50


Globalization, English and 'Other' Languages*

language of England only and did not travel beyond its territory. That a language is a language of Cosmopolis does not by itself make it a great language of literature. Power and quality

- Shakti and Guna - need not always go together. The English of BBC or CNN may not produce an Auden or Elliot or Yeats but can produce a sensation and make us sleepless. There are Englishes, some of them have a lived reality, the smell of sweat and soil, and there must be people dreaming in it and cursing in it for the language to embody human literary experience.

Let me come back to Hanuman for I have another point to make on

language using this great communicator. Here is the story all of us know. Hanuman jumps across the ocean to Lanka and finds Seetha in Ashokavana, in

deep grief. Hanuman observes her from a tree top and wonders in what

language he should address her. Should he speak in Samskrutha, the elite

language of courts, of Ravana's court too? Then Seetha would not trust him; she

may think that he is an emissary of her abductor. Hanuman reflects. (This is from Ramayana):

If like a twice-born (Brahman) I address Seetha using Samskrutha speech she may think I am from Ravana and will be frightened. Far better to speak a human language, one that will make sense to her.

This is Valmiki. And Ravana too was a Brahman, according to our belief. As a writer in one of the regional languages of our country. I have always

been aware of the ambience of many languages in our environment. I have often made an ironic observation that in India the more literate you are the less

languages you know. The CEO of a multinational in Bengalooru knows perhaps only English but the bus stand coolie can manage Urdu, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil and some English too. Many languages are alive in our environment and we have

always perhaps switched from one language into another unconsciously. I take the example of a Bendre who was perhaps one of the greatest poets in my language. He spoke Marathi at home, wrote in Kannada. I asked him, "how long you have been using these two languages?" "Until I was 12 or 131 did not know I was using two languages." When he said it, his daughter-in-law had come to

say something in his ear. And he talked to her in Marathi without thinking he was

speaking in Marathi and he was speaking to me in Kannada. This is India and

Europe does not understand it.

The so called Vernacular' has always had its advantage and use despite the

power of the language of Cosmopolis - Samskrutha in the past and English in

our times. Great writers in regional languages always knew that political and economic hegemony was a problem and yet could not determine the intrinsic

literary quality. I know that I am simplifying the problem and I will come back to this later with qualifications.

I will tell another episode from Kalidasa's Kumar a Sambhava. We all know

c 7?

> ZD fD ZD

c 3

51


Social Scientist

the story how Parvathi could not win over Shiva by her beauty alone and went

through a rigorous tapasya and won over the Lord Shiva. This is a matter of joy for all creation for Tarkasura, a totalitarian dictator of those times had control over all the creation and he had to be destroyed only by the son of Shiva. All the

sages and gods who contrive this finally succeed and come to bless the couple. The goddess of learning, Saraswathi, is one of them. This is how she blesses the

couple according to the poet Kalidasa writing in Samskrutha: (I quote from Kumar a Sambhava in English translation from David Smith).

And Saraswathi praised that couple In twofold language. The excellent bridegroom In Sanskrit, purified in its refinement The bride in syntax easy to understand. I am quoting from an excellent translation of the poem by David Smith.

Note the words cin twofold language', - 'dvidha prayuktena'. And the last line

describing the language of people opposes the praise for Samskrutha with an

equal praise for the vernacular, 'sukha grahya bandhanena'. The original words are still more evocative than 'syntax easy to understand'

All good students of literature know that a highly refined language can be a

disadvantage also. It was a disadvantage for Wordsworth who wrote in a

language which was so refined by Pope and Dryden (sic). So, he had to go back to the people. With greater refinement of language, emotions may get sanitized or too neatly expressed to feel true as it happened with the neo-classical poets in

English in the eighteenth century. William Wordsworth had to go back to the common speech to be able to speak with sincerity and passion. If this can happen within a language, (a vernacular, a language of the people) you can imagine what

may happen between two languages - one of the elite and another of the

common people. Now let me go back to the great shift that took place in the past

- Latin to

other European languages and Samskrutha to Indian Bhashas. The shift is subtle

and slow and not dramatic. When a thousand years ago our great Kannada poet

Pampa wrote the Mahabharatha in Kannada (making important changes in the

original to suit his Jain belief: he intervenes into Mahabharatha), there were poets who composed in Samskrutha too. While Newton wrote in Latin the great Darwin who had an immense cultural impact on his times wrote his Origin of Species in English. In the sixteenth century it was problematic to use English for discursive purposes.

Sir Philip Sydney (1583) wrote a defence of imaginative literature in English for he was averse to. outlandish Latinisms, far-fetched words that may seem

strangers to any pure English Man (his own words). Let me quote him:

on o o rN ft D OjO =3

<

z5

co o

|\ o

CO

O >

52



I know some would say English is a mingled language. And why not, so much the better, taking the best of both the other? Another will say it wanteth grammar. Nay truly, it hath that prayse, that it wanteth not

grammar: for grammar it might have, but it needs it not; not being so easier of itself, and so void of those cumbersome differences of cases,

genders, moods and tenses, which I think was peece of the Tower of

Babylon's curse, that a man should be put to school to learn his mother

tongue. (Posthumously published in 1595). You must note the traces of what I call Vernacular anxiety' (from it all of us

suffer to some extent) in the passage. People ask me, "why you do not write in

English. You know English. You would be known to a larger number of people." Then I say, yes, I will be known to a larger number of people, but those larger number of people are people whom I don't know, whereas in Kannada I know the people for whom I write. And they know me. You may think this may have

advantages or disadvantages, according to your political and your cultural stance. (The word Vernacular' is defined as 'unstandardised native language of a

speech community'). May I say some of us who put our children into bad

English medium expensive schools still suffer from this anxiety? It is not over.

Bengalooru is full of that. Our own grandchildren will not speak to us in our

languages now, thanks to Nehru and globalization and all that; I want to make an important observation here. The word Vernacular' is an

insulting term for any language. For technical purposes we may use the word, but our vernaculars are Bhashas. I must trace here briefly how these vernaculars

got transformed into full fledged languages in Europe and India. The first great name in Europe who did not write in Latin but in the language

of his people was Dante. (He wrote his defence of writing in the common

language of people, but the defence itself was written in Latin. Milton too wrote some tracts in Latin and poems too, lest he be forgotten by the future

generations with the disappearance of English losing political power). It is hard to get free from vernacular anxiety, even for those in love with their spoken languages, mother tongues.

I must however add two more observations here. Earlier than Dante, the first Kannada work appeared in the language of Kannada, an aesthetic treatise called Kavi Raja Marga by Nrupatunga / Srivijaya, a thousand years ago. But

more amazing for me are these words of the Buddha in the pre-Christian era,

admonishing some monks who too suffered from vernacular anxiety. This is what I quote from Vinaya Peethika:

Two monks, Brahmans by birth, were troubled that other monks of various clans, tribes, and families, were corrupting Buddha's words by repeating them each in his own dialect. They asked the Buddha 'let us put the Buddha's words in Vedic Sanskrit verse.' But the Buddha, the blessed

c 7* > ZD ZD r+ 3"

C 3 zr

53


Social Scientist

one, rebuked them saying 'Deluded men! This will not lead to conversion of the unconverted...' And he commanded all the monks: 'You are not to

put the Buddha's words into Vedic Sanskrit verse. To do this would be to commit an intraction. I authorise you, monks, to learn the Buddha's words each in his own dialect.

That is much earlier than the Latin and other transformations. Now I want to take up an event that happened in the past both in India and

Europe. Professor Sheldon Pollock has written, I think, one of the most

important books of our times in his The Language of Gods in the World of Men

(Permanent Black, 2007) where he describes this event - Latin making way for the European vernaculars and Samskrutha making way for the Indian vernaculars. But Latin had a home, unlike Samskrutha. Samskrutha was there all over India. So, it had to have the power of the priest, to make it powerful. But Samskrutha was mostly for aesthetic reasons known everywhere because if you go to the shasanas every king gets himself praised in Samskrutha because it sounds good. And then the real vyavahara

- how much land should go to whom - is written in the mother tongue.

I will sum up his thesis, rather simplistically for our purposes today. He first

quotes Gramsci: "I feel that if language is understood as an element of culture, and thus of general history, a key manifestation of the 'nationality' and

'popularity' of the intellectuals, this study is not pointless and merely 'erudite.' First: Samskrutha was reinvented as a code for literary and political

expression - earlier this was a sacred language for religious practice

- the

language of the 'orally' transmitted Vedas. (The Vedas which were not written but orally transmitted were not primarily seen as poetry although there were

great poetic passages in them). Punish Sookta is not just poetry, but Kalidasa's

Meghsandesha is essentially poetiy. Second: in the beginning of the second millennium, local speech forms were

newly dignified as literary languages and began to challenge the hegemony of Samskrutha. (The oral forms of literature were literized, and then literalized). Literization is to get the alphabet. Kannada got it earlier than Tamil. And then literalized, like in Kavi Raja Marga, what is poetry, etc. you know, these two are

important to consider a passage or literature. Now, there are people who read

the Bible as literature, but Elliot said, "no, if you read it as literature, it ceases to be an important book like the Bible, it becomes poetry'. So, really, he doesn't

accept that.

Third: a close parallel may be observed in Western Europe - the rise of a new

Latin literature and a Universalist Roman empire and displacement of both by regionalized forms. That means, in the old world, when one language which was a common language of all elite was given up, a decentralization took place. We had a Tolstoy, a Dostoevsky, a Dante, a Shakespeare. In India we had a Tulsidas,

ON o o

ZD ZD

<

ZD 00 o

o 00 O

Z

o >

54


Globalization, English and 'Other9 Languages*

a Tukaram, a Pampa, and all the great writers. And now what I see is a reverse

process. We are centralizing again, through globalization. It is a very important point. What happened for a thousand years, a reversal seems to be taking place. Now a German feels that if he doesn't know English, he doesn't become international. In good old days Sir C.V. Raman would make it compulsory for

every physicist to have a dictionary by his side and read German journals. And German was a compulsory language for Physics Honours students in Mysore University. Now very soon we have seen how there is shift into English. Not the British English, but the American English.

The first book available in Kannada is called Kavi Raja Marga (KVRM) and it appeared in 875 or thereabouts. Comparable to this work in importance is

Dante's De Vulgari Eloquentia (On Eloquence in the Vernacular). This was

probably written in the years that preceded Dante's exile between 1303 and 1305. The book is incomplete and written in Latin in search of an illustrious vernacular. It also contains an analysis of the structure of the song, as a literary form.

KVRM was earlier and written in Kannada and Dante's is later and written in Latin although in defence of the vernacular. This is to be noted.

Now I will briefly sum up what KVRM, meaningful for us even now, tries to

say. Sheldon Pollock has written in depth about this work and a noted Kannada

historian, Dr. Shetter, has also an important book on this. I am grateful to both for my summary.

The author of KVRM says: Both Sanskrit and Prakrit are available according to one's wish for

composing literature with refinement, since to be sure there are already available literary models and norms (lakshya / lakshana) in great abundance for each of the two. But the discourse I will present requires begging scraps to make it intelligible, and it is extremely difficult for any one to do it in the case of Kannada given the absence of models and norms the way the ancient teachers of Sanskrit and Pali did. (Translation: Pollock).

The author attacks what he calls Pale-Kannada (old Kannada) for it is archaic and appropriate for old times. Using that language now, he says, is like

wanting to make love with an old woman. We can presume that Kannada literature exists prior to KVRM of the nineth century. Tamil too is there as literature but I learn it existed orally and Kannada was the first to be written. This is what I gather from Kannada scholars and I am always open to correction in scholarly matters for I am no scholar.

The author of KVRM takes many of his ideas from the Samskrutha literary theoreticians, Bhamaha and Dandi, but transforms them according to the need of Kannada; he adds to them and changes some of their formulations. He gives

c

> ZD PJ ZD r+ ZT

3 C

55


Social Scientist

us two great concepts - still usable by Kannada authors

- Marga and Desi.

Marga is like the royal main road, and the Desi is the indigenous, our own. What is most significant is the way he defines the language Kannada, not just as a

divinely derived speech - not a Deva Bhasha like Samskrutha - but territorially

defined. Scholars say that the author's geography is hazy and vague, but some of them say that this is its strength too:

Between the Kaveri and Godavari rivers is that culture-land Kannada

(nadu), a well-known people-place (janapada) an illustrious, outstanding political realm (vishaya) within the circle of the earth. And even within this there is a culture-land between kisuvolal, the renowned great city of

Kopana, Puligere, Bankonda, a place praised by good people. It is there, should one wish to know, that is found the heart land of Kannada -

Kannada Tirul.

And I am told the Tirul Kannada he recommends is not the Kannada of the

capital. It is away from the capital. I should quote him: 'Kannada Bhavitamada janapadam', people who conceive themselves, or find their identity in the language of Kannada. These are his words: 'Kannadadol bhavithamada janapadam'

- a country and a people imagined in Kannada. A language that does not travel, but defines the

people of a particular territory. But this does not limit the function of

language in the life of the people. For, according to the author, the functions considered the preserve of a Universal language like Samskrutha were indeed reflected in 'the special province integrated in the sphere of the world: Vasudhavalaya vishaya vishesham. There is no vernacular anxiety at all here. It was in Dante, but not in this poetry.

Our first great poet Pampa wrote his Vikramarjuna Vijayam in such Tirul Kannada. He knew his Kalidasa but never doubted a territorially bound

language inadequate to rival Kalidasa. He combined the Marga (the world of

Sanskrit) with Desi (the indigenous language and idiom) This is how he describes his poetic process:

In its imagination a poem must be new and the texture of the composition must be supple. Thus constituted, the composition must partake of the idiom of place (Desiyol puguvudu) and at the same time must penetrate into the idiom of the way (Margadol taluvudu). In this way it truly becomes beautiful - as beautiful as a tender mango tree in spring time, dropping under the heavy weight of flowers and new shoots and crowded with bees, and the cuckoo singing and only the cuckoo. (Translation Pollock).

The Marga / Desi concept has remained to this day a guide to the use of

Kannada, Kannada that is to be constantly enriched by borrowing words from

English, Persian, and other neighbouring languages and still retain its virginity. A

great Kannada poet once said to me that Kannada is like an apsaara whose

ON o o

D DjO D

<

D

00 O i

o 00 O

Z

o >

56



virginity is not lost although she has many lovers. *

Every language has a frontyard and a backyard. I take my own home in my

village. A large house. We had a chawri, a frontyard. We had an inner house, and we had a backyard, where there was a well. And in the frontyard my father's friends would come. He used to get the paper Harijan, and translate it to them, talk about the freedom struggle and things like that, and also Ramayana. But when he went to the backyard, all women, from all castes would come and my mother would talk to them on all matters. And, as a child, I listened to all this. That is why I became a writer. If I had been only in the frontyard, perhaps I would have been a politician. Almost all Indian languages have a backyard. And also ati-Shudra, who now have become literate and they bring their rich

experiences. We have much more spoken literature, oral literature, than written literature. And, this is in the backyard. Our languages have a great future because the backyard supplies continuously. English is lucky because it had its backyard, not in London, but in Yeat's Ireland, in Africa and also in India. It had a backyard and so English has been kept alive by the backyard people.

English was a gateway to knowledge. I had to learn by heart the

impeachment of Warren Hastings, because my father said, "look, the British are so truthful, they punished even Warren Hastings. Look at his speech and learn it

by heart."

There are three languages that most people know. I don't call any of them mother tongue. Mother tongue is a word which can be used only in Europe. I call

them, in Kannada, Mane Mathu, Beedi Mathu, Attada Mathu. Mane Mathu is the house language. A large number of Kannada writers speak Telugu at home.

Agrahara writes in Kannada but Telugu is his mother tongue. There are many writers and poets who write in Kannada but speak Tamil at home. Like Bendre, who wrote in Kannada but spoke at home in Marathi. This is culturally necessary. No Mane Mathu is given up in India.

Beedi Mathu is the language of the province, what you mischievously do with a boy or girl on the street. Kannada is the Beedi Mathu. Attada Mathu is the

language of upstairs. Ramanujam has a poem:

When I was hungry I spoke to my mother in Tamil, to get my food. I talked to boys and girls in Kannada when I was mischievous. My father, a Professor of Mathematics, was upstairs and talked to me in English when he called me.

He would have talked to him in Persian or at one time in Samskrutha, or

later on, if China is dominant, Chinese will be the international language. And, it has no meaning for me. But we need an Attada Mathu, to communicate. Sankara

needed it, Ramanujam needed it, or Gandhi needed it, or I need it, otherwise I would not have been able to talk to you. Don't emotionalise things by talking only about mother tongue. This is Europe. In all our territories all these

c T3 > ZD ZD

3 c

ZT

57


Social Scientist

languages survive. If Karnataka becomes only Kannada kind of things, it becomes a fascist state. It should make way for other languages and they should also learn about Beedi Mathu. This is the right kind of attitude to languages.

Languages and India

India is a civilization and not a nation in the sense Europe evolved the notion of nation states after the collapse of Papal power. Both Tagore and Gandhi had realised this during the struggle for freedom in India. In his Hind Swaraj Gandhi

thought that 'modern western civilization' was evil and our struggle for freeing ourselves from British rule should be a struggle to free even Britain from its

bondage to the notions of modern civilization. After what we have seen of the failure of the Soviet Union and the avaricious culture of modern China, and the

globalising India we have come to realize that concentration of power in any form is evil, and we need not reject wholesale the great ideas of anarchist thinking that is seen in visionary thinkers like Tolstoy and Gandhi. They believed in self

regulating small communities, largely rural communities in the case of Gandhi, for humankind to be creative and live in harmony with Nature.

Nehru was basically a 'cosmopolitan' thinker, attracted emotionally to Gandhian dreams. Smaller, language-based, state enjoying a certain degree of

autonomy, was closer to the Panchayat Raj ideal of Gandhi. Yet Nehru, in his dream of a strong India

- 'strong' in the western sense

- was opposed to the

creation of linguistic states. But Nehru was a genuine democrat and he had to

yield to the demand of linguistic states. The 'cosmopolitan' Indian English educated class was skeptical of universal suffrage and also of linguistic states.

They have a readymade vocabulary to denigrate the dream and desire for smaller self-regulating community-based state power.

We know those words - 'narrow-minded' 'chauvinistic' and so on. I must

point out here that in my thinking a cosmopolitan thinker is Euro-centered whereas the community-based thinker is an organic intellectual and universalist.

A few years ago the BBC sought me out to ask me in their innocent

perplexity whether it was true that our state Karnataka (with a globalized IT city like Bangalore) was going to make Kannada compulsory in the state. I replied in an equally feigned perplexity "was it true that English was compulsory in

England and French in France?" In India we have realized that if we overcentralize there is danger that we may

Balkanize. Examples of Tamilnadu at one time, Assam even now, are examples for such movements and violent agitations. Our civilisation is based on three

principles. They are: Democracy, Secularism and Federalism. When Indiraji was in power she tried to belittle Federalism and put her own henchmen in power in all the states and the 'High Command' became more 'high' than people could bear. Movements appeared in Punjab for separation. She declared Emergency

ON o o > ZD

00 o

o 00 O

Z

ro

>

58



and thus belittled democracy and she paid a heavy price. In recent years BJP tried to change the 'secular' nature of our polity and despite Tndia shining' slogan they lost power.

We are searching for ways to remain a civilization with pluralities of culture, and formation of linguistic states was one such step. But we must realize, for

instance, that even Karnataka is mini-India and in an overall ambience of Kannada language culture other linguistic cultures in Karnataka

- our own

languages like Tulu, Konkani, Kodava, and Urdu - should not feel alien in our

land. This is true for almost all other Indian linguistic states. Our children in Bengalooru spend a lakh of rupees and get into a bad private

school where everything is taught in English and they don't create knowledge in the schoolroom. Knowledge is transferred to them. Whereas in the mother

tongue school knowledge is created in the schoolroom, and then they can shift to

English and other languages. I am not anti-English. But they should learn to create knowledge. And now common schools have become a dream and the

government goes on assuring us but common schools are ignored because our children don't go to these schools. But government school teachers are better

trained, better paid. In Kerala I found that private people are opening English medium schools with teachers who are very poorly paid, English very bad. But even a poor man feels if there is no English they will not go very far. I recommended in my report of a Kerala government-sponsored committee,

after studying the situation for six months, that all government schools should offer them spoken English from the first standard but teach them in their own mother tongue. But two members of the committee did not sign this report because the private school lobby is very strong, because if the government schools, common schools, would become much better, our children would also

go there and then the big commercial venture will'suffer. This is true of

Bengalooru. This is true everywhere. I think that our whole Kavi Raja Marga ideal of combining the Marga and

Desi and creating a language which may not travel beyond its territory but which can mirror the whole world is possible if we can combine Mane Mathu, Beedi

Mathu and Attada Mathu and not leave any of them. I will finish it with a story. Srikrishna Parmatma went to a common school.

One of his classmates was Kuchela or Sudama, a very poor man. That can't

happen to my grandson. My point of this well known story is that Krishna becomes a Bhagwan because he had Kuchela as a friend. Otherwise this myth would not have been possible. And Kuchela had some hopes because Krishna was his classmate. Now, we have destroyed hope, we have destroyed glory. And that is globalization. And we have to get back to the common school system.

U. R. Ananthamurthy is an eminent literateur based in Karnataka.

c

> ZD ZD

C

ZT

59


Article Contentsp. 50p. 51p. 52p. 53p. 54p. 55p. 56p. 57p. 58p. 59

Issue Table of ContentsSocial Scientist, Vol. 37, No. 7/8 (Jul. - Aug., 2009), pp. 1-88Front MatterEditorial [pp. 1-3]Money under Capitalism: Domestic, Universal [pp. 4-20]Challenges before Higher Education in Developing Societies [pp. 21-32]Culture, Diversity and Similarity: A reflection on Heterogeneity and Homogeneity [pp. 33-49]Globalization, English and 'Other' Languages [pp. 50-59]The Trial of Derozio, or the Scandal of Reason [pp. 60-88]Back Matter

globalization, english and 'other' languages

Documents