Notes on Classical History

The spread of Christianity in no way harmed the flourishing of pagan literature. Instruction in the universities (Rome, Milan, Carthage, Bordeaux, Athens, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) was still based on rhetoric, and literature received the support of senatorial circles, especially in Rome (for example those of the Symmachi and the Nicomachi Flaviani). Latin literature was represented by Symmachus and the poet Ausonius. The last great historian of Rome was Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek who wrote in Latin for the Roman aristocracy; of his Res gestae, the most completely preserved part describes the period from 353 to 378. The works of Sextus Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, who ably abridged earlier historical works, are fairly accurate and more reliable than the Scriptores historiae Augustae, a collection of imperial biographies of unequal value, undoubtedly composed under Theodosius but for an unknown purpose. Erudition was greatly prized in aristocratic circles, which, enamoured of the past, studied and commented on the classic authors (Virgil) or the ancestral rites (the Saturnalia of Macrobius). Greek literature is represented by the works of philosophers or sophists: Themistius, a political theoretician who advocated absolutism; Himerius of Prusias; and above all Libanius of Antioch, whose correspondence and political discourses from the Theodosian period bear witness to his perspicacity and, often, to his courage.

Script kiddos...

Once, I had a long discussion with some people on this topic. I was arguing that all Indian scripts must be written in one script- Roman, devanagari, Malayalam, Bengali or whatever, you make one up, if you find choosing one of 'em to be favoring a culture.

I don't really mind anyone being selected because except Tamil, most of these Indian scripts are very recent. Hence, the whole argument of preserving the age-old tradition with a script doesn't hold too strong.

Not only that these scripts are recent - the linguistic identity (which gives birth to strong regionalism in Indian states) is a very post-colonial influence. Those who had the chance to know about more than a language (and here, for example, I don't mean the ability to buy cigarettes from a bhaiya panwallah or comprehension of bollywood trash to be counted as knowledge of Hindi; I mean those have explored literature of two or more languages) would really appreciate this fact. There was Western style literature (novels, essays, articles) written before we came into the contact with West. It was all about poetry-religion, with the common people having no concern with the habit of reading/writing. Even writing letters was something that only high-class people did. Back then, not surprisingly, the choice of scripts wasn't too big a deal. A bunch of Brahmins or Buddhist monks, would start compiling some new stuff, and transfer that to their generations - and Voila! we got a new script launched. Even those people were not too picky about the scripts, not as half as the regionalists are in India these days.

Its just ridiculous to see that most Indian languages, write the same ka, kha, ga, gha in umpteen no. of ways, each with their own regional nationalistic justification "don't write in devanagari, we would loose our identity" As if our ancestors wanted 'ka' to be written only this particular twisted way. Yet another hypocrisy, I must say; yet another way how Indians only sanctify the culture instead of contributing to it, just the way British wanted them to be in 19th century. Do people have any idea how easy it becomes to learn other languages, if the script is common. On top of that does it not complicate matters for two languages to have different scripts, despite being very very similar? why disable people of reading other languages even if they know those langauges are so much the same?

Pakistan (like other Islamic nations except the turkey kinds) would write all their languages in Nastaliq. All European languages would be written in Roman (without anyone worrying how ) East Europeans are switching to Roman instead of Cyrillic- They all know that scripts are meant to spread knowledge- to make sure that it reaches more people. It really helps if everyone writes in the same script for the reasons a script is meant for.

Pardon my rants- i must admit that all this comes after someone like me knows to read > 10 scripts, but would always fail at achieving the same reading speed with all of them. It would help "big time" if bongs, Pakistanis, marathis, gujjus, punjabis(whatever little they write [;)]), bhaiyas(whatever trash they write) all write in one script.

On a lighter note, some scripts are "evil"- their characters are so pointed that its likely for most westerners to associate it with devil. Not that its a reason, but if you can go all English for globalization, why not just imbibe this little thing. Its natural...right? Why create a whole confusion? Imposition of a script on an evolving language is tantamount to bigotry- causing language enthusiasts like myself to suffer.

The script used for Urdu (nastaliq) is alright for most Hindi work. Its extended alphabet includes many of the letters which are not there in Arabic or Persian. The very basic sounds of Ta (as in tomato) and kha (as in khel, khana) - Its perfectly alright to invent new symbols in the target script (extend its alphabet to the source language) That is how Urdu evolved, not among the bigots and grammarians, but among the common people; it opened the locked doors in the people of North India; it made foreigners appreciate the beauty of the local languages, and the natives acquire a common language for a unified and uniform culture.

Where are we now? Why can't one further step be taken? Why is one script not extended to other languages. Instead, what folks are busy doing is to associate Urdu with Muslims... make them even more untouchable than it has increasingly become.

People need to inculcate love and feel for languages amongst themselves. I know that its really very antagonistic. One one hand, when everything is going English (and most Indian don't know crap about their own languages) the issues of linguistic identity become more important. You need not have read the great stuff in your local language, but you feel like extolling its marvel...its easier to that now, because you don't even happen to read it anymore, being busy with the English reading list. So, you would easily spot a bong, who never read a short story by Rabindranath, but would go ahead telling you how great he really was! Or even worse is this -you might know premchand was a great writer- but because you read his stories translated in English.


For this neo-rich metropolite class, I have no suggestions anyways. I think the real problem is that - the space for local languages in our lives is shrinking day by day. In that case, it really doesn't become feasible to think of a common language seeking base in local languages. What we have right now, instead, is some made-up crap to bolster our regional identity- which doesn't have to be necessarily meaningful. No wonder all local arts- literature in India is declining. At this rate, there would be no local languages 50 years from now.

What we could probably do is try to understand what Indian culture really means to us, and let it grow instead of containing it in our colonial prejudices.