University of Minnesota Press

The Language of Man

Author(s): Luce Irigaray and Erin G. Carlston
Source: Cultural Critique, No. 13, The Construction of Gender and Modes of Social Division (
Autumn, 1989), pp. 191-202
Published by: University of Minnesota Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1354273
Accessed: 19-10-2015 00:36 UTC

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 of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Minnesota Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cultural Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Language of Man'

Luce Irigaray

T he problem of the sexuation of discourse has, paradoxically,

never been posed. Man, as an animal gifted with language
(langage), as rational animal, has always represented the only
possible subject of discourse, the only possible subject. And his
language (langue) appears to be the universal itself. The mode(s)
of predication, the categories of discourse, the forms of judg-
ment, the dominion of the concept ... have never been interrogated
as determined by a sexedbeing. If the relation of the subject speak-
ing to nature, to the given or fabricated object, to God the cre-
ator, to other intraworldly existants, has been questioned in the
different epochs of history, it has never seemed, still does not
seem, necessary to call into question this a priori: that this is, still
and always, a matter of a universe or world of man. A perpetual-
ly unrecognized (meconnue)law prescribes all realizations of lan-

I would like to thank Nadine Berenguier, Patricia de Castries, Brian Massumi,

and Gayatri Spivak for their many helpful comments on this translation. All final
decisions about, and consequent errors in, the wording are, of course, my
own.-EGC
1. This article first appeared as "Le langue de l'homme" in Revue philosophique
4 (automne 1978); it is reprinted in Luce Irigary, Parler n'estjamais neutre (Paris:
Editions de Minuit, 1985), 281-92.
o 1990
by Cultural Critique. 0882-4371 (Fall 1989). All rights reserved.

191

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 Luce Irigaray

guage(s) (langage[s]), all production of discourse, all constitution

of language (langue), according to the necessities of one perspec-
tive, one point of view, one economy: the necessities of man, sup-
posed to represent the human race.
It seems that this self-evident truth (evidence),which is at once
immediate and inscribed in our entire tradition, has to remain
occulted, has to function as the radicallyblind point of entry of the
subject into the universe of speech (dire). To open one's eyes here
amounts to extreme impudence, a folly as yet unheard of, a vio-
lence that calls for the mobilization of all kinds of arguments-
even those apparently in contradiction-to maintain the estab-
lished order.
Such a reaction shows that this question is not innocent, that
it shakes the foundations of what was given as universal, beyond the
reach of empirical imperatives, of subjective or historical particu-
larities. Such an interrogation cannot, therefore, remain local. It
doesn't touch only a few of the modalities of speech (dire), the
singularities of expression possible in a language (langue). It can't
be formulated from within an already-existing general code. In
short, it doesn't belong to the idiomatic register. The problem of
the sexuation of the production of discourse can't be boiled down
to the problem of an idiolect, unless we admit that the language
(langue) that lays down the law is already the idiom of men, the
manifestation of man as idiot.
The recourse to etymology won't mute the effect of what is
startling in the discovery of such a truth: the universal appears
there as a particular, proper to man. Why not? Hasn't this particu-
lar proved its effectiveness? Why would a power or a will-to do
or to speak-only be valuable on the condition of being univer-
sally valid, of imposing itself as unique and exclusive? Doesn't this
nonlimitation-limitation of its range reduce its powers of com-
prehension? And doesn't there remain, in consciousness, mind,
subject, and all the figures of discourse, a naivete (in the Hegelian
sense of the term) masking itself under the absolute predicate:
that the sexuation of discourse and, more generally, of language
(langue) is forgotten? Or perhaps, the failure to recognize (mecon-
naissancede) a matter sexed masculine, producing its truth, affirm-
ing and denying itself in Truth, Being, Mind, Presence, etc. Or
simply, Language (la Langue).

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Language of Man 193

Certainly, some anthropologists of distant or local peoples

raise the question of the men/women difference in the mecha-
nisms constitutive of a culture and its language or languages (son
ou ses langages). But their affirmations seem always to have to be
resubmitted to a "first philosophy," never to return to the anchor-
ing point of the word (parole) in order to interpret it as andrologic
and not as anthropologic. A sexed subject imposes its imperatives
as universally valuable, as if they alone were capable of defining
the forms of reason, of thought, of meaning, of exchanges in
general. It leads us back, still and always, to the same logic, to the
only logic: of the One, of the Same. Of the Sameness of the One.

How do we make apparent that which reveals itself only in

exiting this autological circle? That which takes place only in re-
moving itself from its own modes of demonstration? A difficult
question! To demonstrate nothing risks maintaining the status of
the other as infans, endlessly providing material for the function-
ing of the same discourse; to enter too simply into demonstration
amounts to abolishing difference again and to resubmitting
oneself to the same imperatives. How do we speak the other with-
out subordinating it again to the one? What method could even
render this question perceptible? Here are indicated, tentatively,
some applications and implications of the-masculine-sexuation
of discourse, using some of its own methods to try to make its
always-occulted presuppositions understood.

1. An eidetic structure commands the functioning of our

truth. No existant, no relation to the existant, can state itself with-
out reference to a model that determines its manifestation as an
approximative miming of its ideal being. The generic dominates
the appropriation of meaning. No language (langage) is capable of
speaking (the) truth without submitting to the common or proper
terms that mold it into adequate, that is to say essential, forms.
How do we ask this question of such a logical economy: what
happens to nature in this discursive functioning? Always already
reduced in the subordination to ideas, it can no longer be repre-
sented except through categories that remove it from immediate
sensory perception. This natural causality, however, subsists and

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 Luce Irigaray

maintains the production of ideas.2 Where and how does it ap-

pear in the forms of discourse? What remnant of silence resists
such formations? What is said or made of sensory immediacy by
truth?The logos?
And, on the other hand, what affects does that remnant
allow to be articulated?To be translated into language (langue)?
For are there ever ideal affects that aren't already found to be
reduced insofar as they are affects? From the very beginning,
then, logic would annihilate one mode of relationship-to affect
for man and woman. In effect, there is only one idea for each
existant and each apprehension of the existant.
Now, can't this eidetic structure be interpreted as the impos-
sibility,for man, of giving meaning to his naturalbeginning, of
predicating his relationship to a matter-mother from which he
comes? He comes from it, but he exists as (a) man in separating
himself from it, in forgetting it, in interrupting every bond of
contiguity-continuity,in suspending every sympathy (in the ety-
mological sense of the word) with this primarymatter irreducible
to his being man (son etrehomme).At least as he represents it to
himself. The principleof identitythat lays down the law preserving
him from any relapse into a heterogeneity capable of altering the
purity of his auto-affection.
Would woman, women, have nothing otherto say about this
relationship to the natural? Not simply in the mode of a comple-
ment or supplement to the speech (dire)already existing, but as a
differentarticulationby the animal speaking to nature, to matter,
to the body. Women don't have to distinguish themselves, like
man, from the nature-mother that produced them; they can re-
main attached to her, indeed identify themselves with her, with-
out losing their sexual identity. This would permit them, were not
the authority of the principle of self-identity decreed by man, to
enter in anotherwayinto the universe of speech (dire),to elaborate
the edifice of language (langage)differently,reconnecting it to the
primary matter in an unprecedented kind of speech (parole).
This would interrogate-at least for women?-the hypoth-

2. Cf. the analysis of the myth of the cavern in Speculum of the Other Woman,
trans. Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Language of Man 195

esis (hypotheque) of nothingness and of nonbeing, at work in our

logic since the very beginning-these notions of emptiness, ab-
sence, hole, abyss,nothing ... (the conception of the negative?)to
which the history of thought periodically returns, and which sci-
ence progressively helps it to name, though they persist-as the
attractionof the still-nameless-for and in man himself. As if, the
more physics strives to resolve the question of the void, the more
insistently the latter comes back to man, as what he has projected
into and onto nature? For lack of an answer to what is going on in
and for him?
If the geometric, and more generally the mathematical,
model that he has applied to the deciphering of the natural exis-
tant has permitted man to elaborate a theory and display its effec-
tiveness, the dominion of this mathesisover the discursive function
has constituted him, butjust as surely dispossessed him, as subject.
In what ratio,to what degree has man subjugated himself insofar
as he is corporeal, sexed matter? And the ideal that he has im-
posed on himself as a norm-hasn't it at once assured his power,
his mastery, and mortified/annihilated his relationship to living
nature?

If psychoanalysisinterprets something of this schiz (schize)of

the subject-man,it reintroduces certain philosophical a prioris. It
describes and rearranges (man's) sexuality according to the pre-
eminence of the death drives over the libido, the automatism of
repetition as a privileged spatiotemporalscansion, the triumph of
the principle of constancy,the desire for homeostasis,etc.: thelove
of the same and the rejectionof difference.It resubmits the uncon-
scious to the most fundamental laws of the consciousness. Or,
more exactly, it discovers the unconscious to be the wrong side or
reverse of the consciousness, reclosing the circle of the constitu-
tion of the subject,but leaving it substantiallyunchanged. Psycho-
analysis unmasks, at least in part, the underside of a functioning
system, but it doesn't disturbit. It maintains,indeed confirms, man
in his destiny, his perennial discourse. It doesn't go so far as to
question the sexuation of discourse itself, of the theoretical in
general. A theory of sexuality, it fails to recognize the sexual
determinations of its theory. In this, it remains naively metaphysi-
cal. Submitted to the auto-logic of a subject appropriated by and

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 Luce Irigaray

for the necessities of the male sex alone, it presents itself as indif-
ferent to sex: Truth.
2. The Dominion of the One, of the sameness of the One, in
Western logic, supports itself on a binarismthat is never radically
called into question. The fact that the question of this regulative
model is raised locally in the sciences (including the sciences of
logic), or that it has been addressed by certain philosophers since
Nietzsche, still doesn't seem to have rendered it absolutely imper-
ative that the question of this model be applied to the discursive
function. Yes/no, inside/outside, good/bad, true/false, being/
nonbeing, and all consequent and subsequent dichotomies, re-
main the oppositions in terms of which the subject enters into
language (langage),though not without their bending to language
(langue),to the principleof non-contradiction: yes or no, not yes and
no at the same time, at least ostensibly.... Alternatives that are
then measured, tempered, temporalized, and determined in the
hierarchical mode, the assumption always being that the contra-
diction can be resolved in the right term, can come to a proper
conclusion.
The substantial consistency of the one (of the subject)-
capable of surmounting, within itself, its own antagonisms: the
rational animal . ..-is founded on this bipolar dismemberment
(cetecartelement bipolaire),its denegation, and the mastery of con-
tradictories.
Yesand no to (the) nature-mother-consumed/rejected, in-
trojected/projected-no to this denied, unrecognized (meconnue)
ambivalence: thus is affirmed the identity of a solipsistic subject,
playing the same game indefinitely, secure on the firm ground of
his language (langue).Inside/outside him (the) nature-mother is
assimilated and rejected, too near, too much inside, mixed up
with him ever to be perceived as different, too far outside not to
remain an imperceptible beyond, a blind constituent of the world
with its inside/outside. (The) nature-mother-the subject's in-
itself/out-of-self, internal/external to discourse-nourishes
meaning in some obscure fashion and remains expelled from all
the universes of possible references.
This contra-diction, always at work in the order of our rea-
son, must never be revealed as the trace of the passage, through
an original reduction, of the other into the same. It is forgotten in

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Language of Man 197

the determination of a natural world, of a phusis that is already a

creation of man. The perceived movements of this phusis are al-
ready subjected to the imperatives of his culture, to his own
spatio-temporality, he who discovers of nature only what his mea-
suring instruments can progressively dominate.

How do the denegation of a rhythm specific to (the) nature-

mother, this fundamental fort-da constantly re-covered and re-
emerging in the multiple hierarchical oppositions of/in language
(langue)-how do these also signify the constitution of the world
according to an alternation proper to male sexuality: erec-
tion/detumescence? Another question which that which offers it-
self as universal will reject, refusing the reappearance of a possi-
ble contra-diction in a place where logic no longer expects it and
can't reabsorb it. A contra-diction constituted by the speech (dire)
of women, which interpellates the truth of a beyond of its sup-
posedly unlimited limit, of its measurelessness, and which necessi-
tates a reorganization of its autarkic economy. A contra-diction
that demonstrates to man that his discourse, his language (langue),
are the universe and the techniques of man, marked by the imper-
atives particular to his sex-an intolerable interpretation, which
brings about the downfall of the order of his claim to the absolute.
And what if, for women, dichotomous oppositions didn't
make sense as they did for men, at least not without a radical
submission to the phallic, masculine world, which leaves them
mute or reduces them to mimetism, the only language (langage) or
silence permitted them in this discursive order? What if women
didn't constitute themselves in the mode of the one (consistent,
substantial, subsisting, permanent . .) and its propping-up of the
contradictions that are at once active and occulted in a proper
hierarchy? What if women were always "at least two," without any
opposition between those two, without reduction of the other to
the one, without any possible appropriation into a logic of the
one, without an autologic closure of the circle of the same? Always
at least two, which never boil down to a binary alternative: the
logic of distancing and of the mastery of the other? What if they
always spoke many at a time, without the many being reducible to
the multiple of one? How would truth assimilate into its economy

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 Luce Irigaray

this enigmatic speech (parole),without any known principle of

self-identity, or of non-contradiction?What would become of the
universal that lays down the law?

3. To continue: what sorts of unforeseen, unforeseeable acci-

dents might occur in the becoming (devenir)of the essential forms
that discourse proposes to itself as its end? What crisis of truth-
or of being-would result if an existant, which had always been
subjected to the laws of predication that are determined by men
alone, appropriated speech (parole)for itself? How might this dis-
turb the premises that ensure its logic? Let an existant depart
from the ontological status that is imparted to it once and for all,
and meaning-of truth, of being-loses its immutability,its im-
passibility. Discourse unravels, overflows into the infinite, re-
discovering its aporias.
To put it differently, how does the deprivation of a speci-
ficity of speech (langage),of language (langue),on the side of (the)
woman make possible the domination of a logic of the form that
necessitates botha God (transcendence marked by the male sex)
and the interdiction or impossibility of a regression to primary
matter?The penalty for which might be that all substance should
relapse into indifferentiation? Into the loss of individuation? Of
self-identity?
What power finds itself thereby deprived of its own enact-
ment (miseen acte)?A substratumthat alwaysremains availablefor
the practice of man's techniques?
From this point on, is discourse anything other than the
archi-techniqueserving to help man to come into his being? Does it
not constitute, from the very beginning, a tool useful to the be-
coming (devenir)of man and man alone? Inaugurating itself as the
space of an impossible exchange,except between man and himself.

If form were no longer extrapolatablefrom matter, if matter

and form should engender one another endlessly, without a limit
prescribed by the domination of the one-the One-over the
other-wouldn't this perspective re-open another mode of ex-
change? In which the one and the other-man and woman, for
example-would give each other matter and form, potentialityand

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Language of Man 199

actuality (puissanceet acte), in a process of becoming (devenir)that is

never teleologically halted, without stable transcendence or imma-
nence.
What opposition (but also complementarity) of the pair
matter/form-woman/man-would thereby find itself thwarted,
thus confounding both the force of binarism and the substance-
origin that it supports and maintains? References of a single agent-
subject, affected by its own activity, active producer and passive
recipient of the energy it would always already have appropriated
for itself in a coming-and-going between the outside and its own
inside that would make it turn in a circle: transfer that would no
longer have its beginning, nor its end, in some other? Woman
would not appear there, or at best would only be signified as not-
man, with no specificity except a negative one, with no difference
except an aporetic one, a pole, a center, of lack that would have to
try to raise itself to the only valid human-or divine-standard.
The notions man/woman only form, strictly speaking, one notion,
still hierarchically dichotomized, with regard to such a logic.
And what if this other, speaking, nature acceded to (its) lan-
guage (lalsa langue)? If this hitherto nonsubjectivable subjectum
unveiled itself as the resource of another logic? How would this
disturb the status of the subject and of discourse?
4. Discourse, logos, would bear witness, then, to the necessity
and the modalities of man's separation from (the) nature-mother.
This separation, which constitutes man as man, would require
that, starting from an undifferentiated subjectum,he erect himself
as a solid entity.
In the pre-Socratics, we still find the exorcism-or at least the
framing-of fluids by solid realities: the world-cosmos surrounds
itself with a shell in Empedocles, the world-thought closes itself up
in a circle with Parmenides. Western logic calls for and relies on a
mechanics of solids. The fluid will always spill over reason, ratio, go
beyond measure, plunge back into the undifferentiated: a universe
of myths and magic, a night resisting the lucidity of the philoso-
phers who will only approach it to re-enclose it within the shores of
their thought. Forgetting that, without fluidity, their thought
would have no possible unity, that fluid always subsists betweensolid
substances tojoin them, to re-unite them. Without the intervention
of fluids, no discourse would hold together. But the operation of

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 Luce Irigaray

fluids doesn't state itself as a condition of truth, of the coherence of

the logos. To do that would be to reveal the instability of its edifice,
the moving ground beneath it.
Don't the sciences interpret, in their own manner, the fulfill-
ment of philosophy as the end of the prevalence of a logic of
solids? Aren't they discovering or rediscovering the properties of
a dynamic of flow that discourse still resists, constraining us to
obey a world of outdated reason, even though we actually live in a
universe where the power of fluids is becoming more and more
dominant?
The economy of flows obliges us to re-evaluate what has
been determined as subject. The latter only persists as the ashes of
an ancient world, debris submerged by the forces of energies that
it can no longer master. The discourse of man perpetuates itself
as a language (langage) overwhelmed by the technical power of
scientific formalizations, engendering themselves according to
their own necessities and producing effects, which escape con-
sciousness, of the destruction and creation of a universe. Man
accompanies, is present at, participates in or annihilates such pro-
cesses almost by chance.3 The chance of connections or inter-
ferences that escape him, and whose relationship to a dynamic of
flows, deployed outside of the control of reason, is yet to be
thought?
The so-called human sciences, the methods of description
and of normalization of the psukhe, often seem to be arrested at
the conception of a subjectivity whose relation to the metaphysical
is insufficiently questioned. Thus, when psychoanalysis supports
its theory of the mechanisms of the unconscious with ther-
modynamics, it forces the libidinal dynamic back into a closed
circuit, imprisoning the pulsional flows in solid reservoirs. The
privilege of the principle of constancy needs to be correlated with
the preeminence of the death drives. Psychoanalysis re-encloses
desire within the framework(s) of a classical rationality, a cir-
cumscription it stumbles into but from which it hasn't yet exited.
This economy repeats itself indefinitely without modifying itself
radically, as if the subject had to remain immutable with regard to

3. Irigaray puns here on the French word for "chance" (hasard)and Friedrich
Nietzsche's "Hazar." See his Thus Spake Zarathustra, trans. Alexander Tille
(1883-92; New York: Macmillan, 1924), 345.-EGC

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Language of Man 201

all becoming (devenir),physical or historical. Its permanence

would lay down the law for all nature or history, without ever
letting itself be determined by them. An interpretive model for
what is already past, psychoanalysisrefuses to listen to that which,
in this past, was not yet speaking. It renews the censures and
repressions of the dominant order.
Thus, in its theorizationof women'sdesire, it would continue
to exhibit and practice an allegiance without fundamental reser-
vations to a logic sexed "male."And yet . . women's speech (dire)
would differ from the formal discontinuum-continuumthat scans
the meter of such a logic: a continuum-discontinuum whose
movement would no longer be ordained to any assignable end-
neither to ek-sistence nor to ek-stasy,punctual or definitive-but
which would engender itself by degrees with quantitative and
qualitative heterogeneities, with physical modifications or altera-
tions, a dynamic not entirely foreseeable according to the laws
governing the displacement of bodies, a dynamic also stemming
from a real void between two infinitely neighboring ones. A
speech (dire)where infinity would be physicallyand really at work
in the dynamic of flows, where it would no longer represent the
risk of an aporia to be enclosed in some kind of ideal reality, but a
power whose energy can never be shut up, enclosed, in one act:
the potential and the actual engendering each other there, re-
ciprocally, endlessly.

But this language (langage)of woman/women is still censored

today, repressed, unrecognized, a language held (back)in latency,
awaiting attention, to be deciphered in the so-called hysterical
symptomatology,even though the science of the dynamic of fluids
already provides a partial interpretation of it. It seems that the
science of the subjectresists fulfilling its "Copernicanrevolution."
That which it established as normative truth, it refuses to interro-
gate in its mono-sexual causality.Any contribution from another
sex is only acceptable to it as an additionof stylisticfigures whose
role is to complete (accomplir) a logical function that remains un-
shakable. The reality of the dynamic of fluids is supposed to re-
solve itself into a few flowers of rhetoric in a discourse that is
fundamentally unchanged, a prescription that fails to recognize
that the logosrepresents a rhetoric of solids . ..
Thus psychoanalystsobject that it's only a matter of meta-

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
202 Luce Irigaray

phors when the definition of the mechanisms of the unconscious

finds itself interrogated from the standpoint of an economy of
real flows. They haven't seen that the principle of constancy,
homeostasis, and the whole Freudian libidinal theory amount to a
system of metaphors. They listen, interpret, and norm (norment)
the psyche (psychisme) according to a thermodynamic meta-
phoricity whose effectiveness, though not non-existent, is re-
stricted.

The artificialist perspective, from which natural becoming

(devenir) can be approached, consistently falls into the trap of the
seriousness of a universal and eternal truth, even though this is
never anything more than a hypothesis, valid in certain places and
at certain times. The subject and its discourse are correlates or
counterweights, indispensable and complementary, to the extent
to which the natural-material universe is subjugated at each mo-
ment of history. The subject is only an effect or a residue or a
reserve constituting itself in accordance with the incomplete tech-
nique that man utilizes to build himself a world, a sort of meta-
stable reality, pre- and postdiscursive, which, more than ever, is
overwhelmed by the techniques being developed without his
knowing.
What subject today still believes in the discourse that it holds
to be true, unique and definitive? In the name of what God does
the subject still arrange, order, its Truth? For psychoanalysts the
answer is relatively clear: the Phallus.
If we admit that this "God" also dies, will the space thus left
empty bring about a disintegration of all language (langage)? Will
language fall to dust, crumble into atoms, will all worlds (tout
monde) be reduced to finer and finer and more and more innu-
merable units-a decomposition, to infinity, of all universes (tout
univers)? Or will this death make room for that which perhaps He
has always taken the place of: something in excess of the economy
of solids, which, in the end, would no longer be thought of as a
transcendent entity shielded from all becoming (devenir), but as
the extrapolation, to infinity, of a dynamic of real fluids.

Translated by Erin G. Carlston

This content downloaded from 152.2.176.242 on Mon, 19 Oct 2015 00:36:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions