Suchergebnisse

The author takes a critical look at Indian English poetry and poets and cultural influences on them. He points out the special social and historical functions, the work that poetry is called upon to do in transitional India. He notes that unlike other Indian literatures, Indian English poetry has no regional base, no relevant literary tradition with sufficient authority to guide critics to writers. (DÜI-Sen)

Iran's rich repertoire of narrative literature of oral origin, ranging from single-scene situation comedy through fairytale to the lengthy heroic epic, can certainly be appreciated for its intrinsic literary merits and entertainment value. Both compilers and patrons, however, of what are in effect folktale collections, have from ancient times adopted a utilitarian attitude to their material, a classic instance being the political science course that King Dabshalim (or Devasarma) took from Professor Bidpai in the form of animal fables. In one form or another, the practical autocrat and his obliging philosopher have continued to vet Persian literature through the centuries, insisting that myth and folktale be used as parables to leaven works ostensibly of devotional or moral instruction (as of Rumi or Sa'di) or of historical narrative.

Of all man's cultural badges, that of language is perhaps the most intimately felt and tenaciously defended. Even chauvinists who are prepared to concede under pressure that language, race, and culture are not the same thing—that their national ethnicity may be mixed, their religion imported, their culture synthetic to a degree—will still cling to the national language as the last bastion of irrational totemic pride. Hence, one of the most controversial features of the programs of westernization and modernization fostered by Kemal Atatürk in Turkey and Reza Shah in Iran was that of state-sponsored language reform, characterized chiefly by attempts to "purify" Turkish and Persian of their centuries-old accretion of Arabic loanwords. A case study of this process also affords some insight into the differing attitudes to national social reforms in Turkey and in Iran, and among the respective regimes, intelligentsia, and masses, which might help to explain why on balance one "succeeded" while the other "failed."

The article focuses on the genesis and activities of the Persian Academy (the Farhangestan), founded in 1935, the official body charged with implementing language reform in Iran, as compared with its counterpart the Turkish Language Society (Türk Dil Kurumu), founded at Atatürk's instigation in 1932. (DÜI-Hns)