Milk is frothily hitting the bottom of the bowl with a loud ting. Conchita has poured the still warm liquid from a wooden pail into the old tin bowl that wears thin. This bowl is battered from use and rough storage in the small cowshed, where she has now found some privacy. It is the only metal vessel surviving in the hacienda, apart from the large blackened pan in the kitchen.
After a while the circles on the surface of the milk smooth out and it becomes calm, delicate in its creamy stillness. Conchita feels ridiculous and has to fight a sudden urge to drink as much as her stomach might hold and throw away the rest. In the late afternoon sun thrusting its burning rays through the open door, her tanned face is visible as a vague reddened hue reflected in the milk’s white. Conchita has not seen a proper mirror for some years now. During the previous wet season the thin silver foil on the looking glass shard that she had preserved for so long had become grainy and flaked off the piece of glass. Hot damp air disagreed with it. Now she can only gaze at the reflection of her face in a pail filled to the brim with water from a well, or in the calm ponds that proliferate across the fields and meadows in the wake of the long weeks of rain during the wet season.
The ponds remind her of dew droplets on a deep green blade of grass. In her long gone careless childhood, she loved running with the gauchos’ wily sons. They taught her to pick grass blades in their prime that had sharp, well-defined edges. Not too soft or stiff with age, and on this account prone to break into tatters when blown too hard. When firmly placed between the thumbs put together, the blade metamorphoses into the membrane of a powerful makeshift whistle. The screeching sound carries far, startling animals fearful of an invisible bird of prey about to pounce.
Only rarely is the question posed about the scientific character of linguistics. When it is asked, it is usually with the aim of ‘proving’ that linguistics is a science, or in order to overhaul it into a ‘proper science.’ The latter is the case of Leonard Bloomfield’s seminal 1926 article ‘A Set of Postulates for the Science of Language’ (Language, Vol 2, No 3, pp 153–164). ‘Scientific’ in this case means governed by general and unchangeable laws of ‘nature’ (Universe, the material reality), as in the case of laws of matter, which are discovered by physicists or chemists. Furthermore, such scientific character of a research subject may be limited to a system smaller than the Universe, for instance, to life on Earth, when researched by biologists. Only recently did they find the scientific basis of their discipline of biology in DNA and the theory of evolution.
In 2009 I published my monograph on the history of nationalisms and language politics in modern central Europe. Four years later, in 2013 Andrea Graziosi invited me to the international conference on ‘States, Peoples, Languages: A Comparative Political History of Ukrainian, 1863‒2013,’ held at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Like earlier I had done in my book, we were now to have a synoptic look at the 19th and 20th-century history of central and eastern Europe, which was unprecedentedly tragic mainly due to the imperial-cum-nationalist-cum-totalitarian project of fitting linguistically defined groups of people (‘nations’) to ‘their’ territories (‘nation-states’). The process also entailed constructing, unmaking or re-fashioning ‘languages’ so that they would serve ‘more appropriately’ the national projects at hand. As a result, a person moved between countries without ever leaving one’s village. In the morning after another declaration of independence, a subject of a suddenly defunct empire discovered she lived in a state that was not hers. Even worse, because of some half-remembered religion her husband was declared an ‘alien,’ though his family had lived in their home town for centuries. Another unexpected border change, and a civil servant found out that he was actually illiterate, because now the administration was to be conducted in a language and script of which he had no command. In this new brave modern world all and sundry were compelled to finish elementary school. A peasant daughter came back home crying, because the teacher had derided her that she was speaking her national language incorrectly. At the same time, in the distant capital the government commissioned a team of besuited professors to work out yet another sweeping reform, this time to rid the national language of ‘ugly foreign’ words, phrases, pronunciations, syntactical constructs and spellings that were ‘totally alien’ to the ‘true character’ of ‘our’ national language.
The University of St Andrews, located in the picturesque old capital of Scotland, thrives on its ‘internationality.’ This bureaucratic term of higher education ranking tables means that the university’s students and staff come from well over a hundred states from all corners of the world. Half of them are from Britain, while the students and scholars from the European Union (EU) (together with those from the United Kingdom) account for two-thirds of the university’s studying and teaching population. The second largest cohort originates from North America. They amount to over a sixth of the university’s scholars and students.
In recognition of these demographic data, for five years I ran a small-scale experiment in my tutorial groups with the first-year students. As part of induction to the tutorial I asked them about how many states are in the United States (US) and in the European Union. The sequence of posing these two questions is crucial. Practically all the students when inquired about the United States, immediately shot back with the correct answer that this federal polity is now composed of 50 states. Their reply was automatic, like a reflex. Such generalized knowledge on the US is a matter of course on both sides of the Atlantic.
When the sun shone bright in the blue skies, and winter was all but forgotten in May, we didn’t care to remember that after summer, with its luscious meadows of juicy grass and forests of pleasantly cool shadows, the fall would come. Intermittent rains changed top soil into mud that flowed in rivulets down the broad hill slope along which our village extended. The external walls of the better houses built of concrete and brick got soiled. Dirt permanently streaked the clean white or radiant blue of the whitewash that had been painstakingly applied in the spring. It squeezed its way through cracks into the wooden houses that the gadjos called ‘sheds.’ Those who lived at the foot of the hill were the worst off. Their houses stood inundated for weeks on end. To prevent liquid mud from flooding the interior, they cut the bottoms off their entrance doors and put in an additional layer of bricks. With time, several steps led up to the doors that were too low for an average adult to walk through without bending deeply. ‘Bow, bow lower to your rahy, lord,’ cheeky kids screamed and laughed at the helpless exasperation of the chorikanes, poor people.
Sadness gathered and it was magnified by the cold. Few people had enough money for even the cheapest kind of coal or for a gas cylinder to heat their homes properly. Women and children who didn’t go to school roamed the vicinity collecting dry twigs, scrap wood and paper. Each year they had to venture farther away, as the area around the village had already turned into a barren steppe. Kako, or Uncle, kept telling us that when he had been a chkhavo, a boy, there had been many trees around here. Families had kept one or two cows for milk and used dried cowpats for fuel.
My old home, the Monarchy, alone, was a great mansion with many doors and many chambers, for every condition of men. This mansion has been divided, split up, splintered. I have nothing more to seek for, there. I am used to living in a home, not in cabins.
Joseph Roth ‘The Bust of the Emperor’
‘Prussia is no longer with us,’ I hear. ‘Dead,’ they say, a half-forgotten Kingdom of Iron, erased from the map by the victorious Allies with the stroke of pen in 1947, the same year British India was divided one midnight. In the case of Prussia it was Law Forty-Six that did the job. On February the Twenty-Seventh, at the seat of the Allied Control Council in occupied Berlin, Generals Lucius D Clay, Sir Brian Robinson and Joseph Pierre Koening, and Marshal Vassily Sokolovski signed the document. It opened with the chilling statement: ‘The Prussian State, which from early days had been the bearer of militarism and reaction in Germany, has de facto ceased to exist.’ The end. Irrevocably, the end with no reprieve in sight. No thought spared for the fact that in the ‘early days’, Prussia was not a Germany or even part thereof.
 I thank Michael O Gorman for his loving care, which he extended over this text. A word of thanks also goes to Catherine Gibbson and Iemima Ploscariu for their patient advice and useful hints.
In April 2017 the Hungarian government led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán adopted a legislation tailored with an eye to closing down the English-medium Central European University (CEU). This liberal institution – established in 1991, in the year of the breakup of the Soviet Union and two years after the demise of the Soviet bloc – has been a thorn in the side of Orbán’s program of ‘illiberal democracy.’ The CEU’s founder, the US financier George Soros, comes from Hungary, where he was born to an assimilated family of non-observant Hungarian Jews who, apart from Hungarian and German, after the Great War, chose to speak Esperanto as neutral language of potentially universal communication for a future more peaceful world. This was not to be. The two totalitarianisms of national socialism and Soviet communism steamrolled over Hungary and most of central Europe. Tens of millions died in the Holocaust of Jews and Roma, in the course of World War II, in the wake of the establishment of Moscow’s communist regimes across the region, and in both nazi and communist concentration camps. Furthermore, between 1933 and 1950, about 60 million people were expelled from their homes in central Europe, or a third of region’s entire population. In the 1930s Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin also made sure to incarcerate and kill most of Esperantists both in Germany and the Soviet Union. In the former case they were seen as ‘traitors of the nation’ led by a ‘cabala of international Jewry,’ while in the Soviet Union Esperantists were denounced as ‘rootless cosmopolitans’ that was a code phrase for ‘insufficiently Soviet’ Jews.