COLLOQUIUM PAPER

A Framework of Comparison:
Peter Brook’s The Mahabharata and
Dharamvir Bharati’s Andha Yug
MRINALINI SINGHA
B.Des., Film & Video Communication (Semester V)

GUIDE: SHILPA DAS, Ph.D.

Senior Faculty, Interdisciplinary Design Studies

INTRODUCTION perspective but rather contained within themselves multiple

Indian storytelling traditions have always experimented with
narratives embedded within narratives be it the folklore of the
Kathasaritsagara or the intriguingly complex and colossal
Indian epic, the Mahabharata. As goes with the tradition of oral
storytelling, these narratives were not dispersed from a singular
layers of different stories—gods telling stories about human
beings; human beings narrating stories about parrots; and
parrots relating stories about gods—all with little care for
modern notions of chronology.

49

50

51

Fig. 1: Frames illustrating the contents page and structure for this paper.

48 THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09

 With regard to its contents, this paper examines two postmodern
adaptations of the Mahabharata—(a) Dharamvir Bharati’s Hindi
play Andha Yug (1954) which has been translated into English by
Alok Bhalla and (b) Peter Brook’s film The Mahabharata (1989).
Additionally, and perhaps more interestingly for a designer, it
must be underlined at the outset that frames constitute an
integral part of filmmaking and this paper’s structure draws
from the tradition of embedded frames.
Inspired by the section ‘Contents of Anagram’ in Maya Deren’s
experimental work An Anagram of Ideas, the contents page for
this paper and by extension, its structure, has been depicted
through the medium of frames (Fig. 1): ‘The Outer Frame’ that
views the works, ‘The Middle Frame’ that is enmeshed into the
works, and ‘The Inner Frame’ that abstracts ideas from the
works. Keeping in with the narrative framework of the
Mahabharata, these frames also interact with and influence
each other. Those familiar with the texts could also try reading
this paper from innermost to outermost, panning out from the
void of abstraction to the tangible fabric of the works.
1. THE OUTER FRAME: OF VIEWING
To view the works, one must understand the fabric of their medium,
how they came to be and what context they were made in.
Both Bharati’s Andha Yug and Brook’s Mahabharata are set on
the age old premise of the Mahabharata, the Hindu epic which is
seen as “the prime example of the ninth rasa, Santarasa, the
aesthetic motif of the peace of religious experience” (Sullivan 3).
Interestingly however, neither of the two works emphasizes
religious experience. This paper argues that rather (a) the two
works provide a socio-cultural critique of their own unique
contexts using the premise of the Mahabharata as a skeleton for
new arguments and (b) both works illustrate a postmodern
attitude of experimentalism in their medium.
Contextually, Andha Yug was written in post-Partition India and
is recognized as the first postcolonial literary classic. “Andha Yug
is not a rewriting of history. Through the language of the past it is
a poetic expression of an understanding of its own age”
(Dharwadker 187). Until then, the Mahabharata as an epic stood
for heroic anti-colonialism and nationalism.
Andha Yug marked a critical moment for this problematic view
and focuses instead on the savagery of death and the futility of
war. It placed greater emphasis on the psychological impact on
those left behind after the war than on the grandeur of the war
itself. This play is also experimental in nature as it combines the
mythological tales of the Indian epic with elements of Greek
tragedy. In fact, Bharati belongs to the Theatre of the Roots
Movement that emerged after Indian Independence; this
movement was spurred by the search for a new identity and it
THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09
reinterpreted traditional myths through modern themes and
forms (“Epic Play”).
On the other hand, Brook’s film The Mahabharata, which also has
the undertones of post-war sentiments, focuses more on
bringing an Indian epic to the world audience and making it
universal in its appeal.
While Brook attempts to create a relative universality of the epic,
Bharati takes this universality of the Mahabharata as granted.
Andha Yug calls for a more imaginative involvement from the
audience than Brook asks of his. This is because Bharati’s Andha
Yug is a written play; Brook’s is filmed theatre. The latter relies on
the visual diversity of its actors’ ethnicities, while the former fits
into the context of postcolonial India, but relies on its universal
relevance of ideas through the theatre of the mind.
In fact, both texts are bridged by the common medium of
theatre. Andha Yug was originally written in Hindi for the radio
and later translated to English. It has had numerous theatre
performances in both languages since.
Conversely, The Mahabharata was written by Jean-Claude
Carriere and was first directed as a theatrical performance by
Brook, who later made it into a film.
This brings one to question (a) the textual similarities and
differences of film, theatre, and literature and (b) the creative
loss that would occur through translation and changing
mediums.
Combining theatre and film, Brook’s The Mahabharata
radicalizes cinematic space by using theatrical set design that
does not establish space and time. Its performative politics relies
more heavily on the spoken word than on cinematic elements,
bringing through the oral tradition of the ancient epic. The
relationship between spectator and the spectacle differ in the
two mediums as observed in Pattnaik’s essay A Dramatic Film:
“While theatre is momentary, in that it is a single performance,
where the spectator witnesses a final and direct relation with the
actor, the filmic set is an artificial device, which the actor
inhabits repeatedly in the presence of a camera.”
The creative loss both pieces have undergone is immense but
very different in nature. For example, Brook’s The Mahabharata
begins with Vyasa and Ganesha telling a boy about the war. In the
theater performance, “The boy is thus a representative of the
audience within the drama. We watch him watching the play
from the platform onstage. Throughout the whole drama, the
links between us and the boy, the boy and the play, the play and us
remain elastic and open to redefinition, with the earth as a
common ground and anchor” (Brooks 126–127). Although the film
also breaks the fourth wall, it does not allow for such an intimate
49
Fig. 2: Timeline: Dharamvir Bharati’s Andha Yug. The shaded portion in black represents the version studied for this paper.

Fig. 3: Timeline: Peter Brook’s film The Mahabharata. The shaded portion in black represents the version studied for this paper.

sharing of space, thus altering the experience. Conversely, the
cinematic spectator gets the most ideal view of the enactments.
Andha Yug on the other hand, faces the perils of loss through
translations. Alok Bhalla took up the task of translating the work
to English because he saw inadequacy in the previous
translations. According to him, his students who had read the
work in English reacted differently to each of its characters.
As seen above, the audience, and Indians in particular, are very
critical of the works inspired by this epic. Brook received
backlash for the orientalism and forced universality his film
propagated. It has been observed that: “One should not, under
cover of universality of theme or character, undercut the
intrinsic core of how The Mahabharata’s characters function
within the world of which they are a part of” (Dasgupta 14).
Conversely, Brook explains in his book how relatability was an
important factor for the audience: “The first principle is to start
on the level of the audience, very simply. If in The Mahabharata
we had copied Indian forms, a god would come on as in
Kathakali, with long fingernails and fantastic makeup. However,
even if for a second, the physical beauty of it would engage the
audience, the second afterwards it would seem remote and in no
way connected with real life.”
2. THE MIDDLE FRAME: OF ENMESHMENT
Should one get enmeshed into the very fabric of a work, one would be
able to examine the texture of time, space, and structure.
The epic itself has many beginnings; the works being analyzed in
this paper have only one each. In Brook’s film, the first frame is
of Vyasa dictating his poem on the Mahabharata to Ganesha
who transcribes it; the second is of the Mahabharata carrying
out itself. The film has two endings; the inner frame closes with
the Pandavas reuniting in hell and the outer frame ends with the
finishing of the transcription and the handing over of the book
to the boy. The line between these frames (Fig. 4) is blurry as
Ganesha in the form of Krishna and Vyasa, are also characters in
the Mahabharata. This makes the film self-reflexive in nature.
On the other hand, Andha Yug’s, outer frame (Fig. 5) centers on
conditions in the Kaurava kingdom on the eighteenth and last
day of the Mahabharata war. As an afterword, time gallops
forward 36 years later, ending with Krishna’s death. “Andha Yug
makes two critical structural choices to maintain its atmosphere
of unrelieved suffering: one, by beginning with the end of the
epic war, it bypasses the heroic moments and moves directly to
the experience of irrevocable loss, and two, by focusing on the

He was criticized for eliminating the nuances of the Indian

context and white-washing the religious and cultural
importance the Mahabharata encompasses. For example, the
epic ends with the Sacrifice of the Horse which restores
harmony in the universe once again. Brook’s version, in which
the Kauravas go to heaven and the Pandavas to hell, has no place
in the endless cycle of birth and rebirth, the crux of Hindu
thought (Dasgupta 15–16).

Overall, in spite of being postmodern contemporaries, the two

works represent very different ideologies and kinds of
experimentalism; they face different problems and are for
different audiences. Fig. 4: Narrative frame for Peter Brook’s The Mahabharata.

50 THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09

 defeated Kauravas than the victorious Pandavas, it deals with
political and emotional traumas that can no longer find
resolution” (Dharwadker 186–203).
The inner narrative frame is constituted by Sanjaya who retells
the events of the battlefield to those who did not leave for the
war. In a way, Sanjaya is a living radio of the time, the same
medium that Andha Yug was originally made for. This mind’s
theatre that Sanjaya evokes literally comes to an end in the
middle of Andha Yug as he loses his sight of vision. The walls of
these two frames are non-permeable as opposed to Brook’s
version.
Andha Yug also has a parallel ‘sung narrative’ (called kathagayan)
that takes place in the beginning and end of each act through the
voices of the soldiers in the corridors that provides narrative
continuity to the five self-contained acts of the play that each
represents a different motif (Dharwadker 190).
It can be noted that in Brook’s film, the characters of the story
and the listeners of the story are separated more through
temporal distance as opposed to Andha Yug, where they are
separated more through spatial distance. The former tells us that
the epic battle happened sometime in the distant past and that
the clans were ancestors of the boy. Vyasa, author and active
character, who starts in the present, is also said to be an ancestor
of the Pandava and Kaurava clans. This apparent circularity can
Fig. 5: Narrative frames for Andha Yug.
also be seen in other ancient texts such as the Rig Veda. A
nonlinear time frame that was followed in ancient India brings
to question the genealogy of the clans. In the film, the characters
are not temporally restricted in their interactions. “The absence
of a predetermined threshold between here and there liberates
the flows of dramatic energy” (Brook 127).
On the other hand, in Andha Yug, the location is set as the
Kaurava kingdom while the inner story is set in the battlefield.
THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09
In spite of this, the proximity of the war echoes through the
entirety of the play. Andha Yug is interluded by a scene that takes
place in a limbo-like Kal Yug, where, the dead mendicant
interacts with the spirits of other characters who are still alive in
the play. “It makes all the characters opine how they perceive
themselves in relation to the reality of the moment. Since the
reality is a composite picture, so it changes with the change in its
elemental compositional proportions which gives birth to
multiple versions given by different characters” (Sharma 180).
While Kal Yug in Andha Yug is a trance-like state that allows for
the living and dead to interact, it is not the final destination of
the narration but more of a passing experience. In Brook’s film,
however, heaven and hell are seen as such: destinations at the
end of the journey of life.
Thus, the narrative structures of Brook’s The Mahabharata and
Bharati’s play Andha Yug are quite astoundingly the inverse of
each other. In the former, the storyteller makes the outer frame;
in the latter, the storyteller makes the inner frame. The
storyteller in the first is an active character of the story, while the
storyteller of the second is a passive observer and vehicle of
information. Frames are used to connect different times in the
film and different spaces in the play. The former sees heaven and
hell as destinations at the end of life; however, the play depicts
hell as a limbo which comes not as an end but as a dream-like
state connecting the living and the dead.
3. THE INNER FRAME: OF ABSTRACTION
Moving across the textured fabric, one is aware of its holes and of
its knots that make up for thematic elements.
This section deals with the overarching themes and connections
that exist within and between the texts: from the depiction of
belief systems and abstract concepts to the societal
representations.
3.1 Take on War
he portrayal of war in both works is very different since Brook’s
film focuses on what lead to the war and the happenings on the
battlefield itself. The devastation caused by war is not
emphasized upon as much, though the war is not portrayed as an
inevitable occurrence. On the other hand, Bharati’s Andha Yug
works towards evoking pathos in the reader through its
emphasis on post-war trauma and the futility of the unrighteous
war. Pathos is best depicted through the change in Dhritarashtra,
who, numbed in the first act, “can’t see the events his [Sanjaya’s]
words create” (Bharati 34) and this is changed by the third act
when he says: “today I felt as if those wounds of war Sanjaya has
described so often have been inflicted on my body” (66–67). A
parallel is drawn between the thousands of soldiers who left for
war in grandeur with the army of Ashwatthama, blinded with
rage: “A madman as the commander of an army of two-old
51
Kripacharya and cowardly Kritavarma. Such is the plight of the
invisible Kauravas!” (83).
Kripacharya talks of the “heroic deeds” of the war but with an
undertone of irony for, “Drona was old and unarmed but did
Dhrishtadyumna spare his life? Did we take pity on Abhimanyu
when he was alone and trapped by seven valiant heroes?” (63).
Brook’s film depicts this as well on the night of Abhimanyu’s death.
3.2 Good and Evil, Dharma and Selfhood
For many, the Mahabharata is about the victory of good over evil,
symbolized by the victory of the Pandavas over the Kauravas.
However, neither of the two works being analyzed depicts the two
clans with such polarity. In Brook’s film, it is the Kauravas who go
to heaven and the Pandavas who go to hell. This is because the
Kauravas die on the holy grounds of Kurukshetra. The Pandavas
on the other hand, were plagued by the adharma they had
resorted to in order to win the battle. The complex notion of
dharma in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita suggests that
one should look beyond one’s self-righteousness and do one’s
duty in this world. In Brook’s film, dharma is looked upon
positively and seen as the right thing to do.
In Andha Yug, the “dance of war” (86) between the crow and the
owl can be seen as an allegory of the Pandavas and Kauravas.
Although the crow would usually represent evil, it is attacked
and killed by the owl while the former was sleeping, thus
meeting an unfair end.
However, the concept of dharma in Andha Yug is both berated and
celebrated. On the one hand, Gandhari, who had lost faith, cried
out that she was not always blind, that she “had seen the ways of
the world and knew that dharma, duty and honour were illusions”
(37). Whereas on the other, she had cautioned Duryodhana:
O, Fool, where there is dharma
There is victory.
There was no dharma on either side.
Each was inspired by their blind self-interest. (37–38)
Selfhood is looked upon negatively in both works. In Brook’s
film, the Pandavas display considerable selflessness through
their bond with each other, but they cave into selfhood and
adharma by using sly means to win the war. Bharati’s play voices
this through Balarama who says, “. . . the Pandavas who are
celebrating their victory with conch shells will also be destroyed
by adharma” (80). He also gives the description of an unjust rule
by them.
In Andha Yug, it is Dhritarashtra who realizes that he was
blinded by selfhood saying:
Today
I realised
that there is a truth
52
that lies beyond the boundaries
of my selfhood
I realised that only today. (35)
Dhritarashtra brings out an important observation about truth:
there exists a truth not just for the individual self, but there also
exists a final truth in the world.
Both works have also depicted one character who fights for the
other side in the war. In Brook’s The Mahabharata, it is Karana,
who, on finding out that he is in fact the eldest of the Pandavas,
still chooses to honour his allegiance with the Kauravas. In
Andha Yug, this character is Yuyutsu, who was “the only one of
the Kaurava clan who has held his head high with pride” (72) as
he fought for the Pandavas and chose “the side of truth” (71).
Yuyutsu is shown to regret his decision:
It would have been better
if I had
accepted
the untruth.
....................................
In the final analysis
whether you uphold truth
or untruth
you are damned. (75)
Not only does Yuyutsu’s mother refuse to accept him but he is
also rendered voiceless by the mob that is frightened of him;
Yuyutsu eventually commits suicide.
3.3 Youth and Time
In Andha Yug, Ashwathama’s blind rage lands him on the
“endless shores of desolate time” (64), forever living in the
present. A parallel can be made with Amba’s character in Brook’s
film, whose desire to take revenge from Bhisma keeps her young.
Bhisma, on the other hand, because of his celibacy, could choose
the time of his death but would age nonetheless. Sanjaya too, in
Andha Yug, is immortal because of the tragic truth that he has to
tell while the god, Krishna, “is the embodiment of time as it
flows in its stately dignity”(92).
3.4 Depiction of Divinity
Krishna is a reincarnation of Vishnu and the most beloved of
Indian gods. He is seen as a naughty but an endearing figure who
can be both reprimanded and loved. In these two works,
however, this is not the case. Krishna is shown as the central
turning force in both works. Andha Yug expresses the silent
reverberations felt of him throughout and even verbally: “Yes,
there were still frail threads of honor which held men together
but good and evil were so intrinsically interlocked that only
Krishna had the courage to unravel them” (26). Brook’s film does
so visually in its depiction of how it is Krishna’s hand (Fig. 6)
that moves Arjuna’s arrow forward in time to kill Bhisma.
THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09
 The film represents Krishna physically in the form of a human
being and the difficulty in doing so is described by Maurice
Benichou: “It is very difficult to bring mythical characters down to
earth, to relate them to things we know today. Peter gave me some
excellent advice: he told me to think of Krishna as someone who
intercedes here and there in a conflict asking what’s going on on
either side like a real person, while actually knowing everything
himself, like a god ” (qtd. in Brooks 127).
There are two instances in Brook’s film when Krishna is seen by
Dhritarashtra and Arjuna causing the former to say that he has
seen the world and the latter to be enlightened by the
conversation that makes up the Bhagavad Gita. However, the
audience is not shown these spectacles.
However, with regard to being humane, Brook’s Krishna fares very
poorly: “The Homeric compaction is felt most poignantly in the
characterization of Krishna, who comes across more as a Ulysses
than as a personification of the god Vishnu. Within the confines
of The Mahabharata’s grandiose themes, the recklessness of
Brook’s Krishna is oddly out of place” (Dasgupta 13).
Andha Yug begins with a similar Krishna as the only one
“dispassionate and detached” (26) enough to “be the savior of
Fig. 6: Time stops as Krishna moves the arrow forward.
their future” (26). This image of his changes only once the
audience hears him speak. He is not seen and it is only a shadow
of his that is shown on stage—an interesting way to depict a god
without trivializing him into a mere human being. In another
scene, a feather drops from Krishna’s crown, poignantly
representing humanity losing faith in him. Krishna is then
shown as a more humane character through this reply to
Gandhari’s curse:
In this terrible war of eighteen days
I am the only one who died a million times. Every
time a soldier was struck down
every time a soldier fell to the ground it was I
who was struck down
THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09
it was I who was wounded
it was I who fell to the ground.
........................................................
If I am life
then, Mother
I am also death. (123)
There is one other god depicted in each of the two works. In
Brook’s film, it is Ganesha who takes up a comic form with an
elephant mask. He turns into Krishna by taking off the mask,
connoting that Brook did not want his audience to maintain a
suspension of disbelief. In Andha Yug, it is Shankara whose
presence is depicted by the turning off of lights on stage as
opposed to a gentle shadow.
3.5 Representation of Disability
History has not been kind towards those with disabilities and
usually portrays them as helpless characters. This can be said for
Dhritarashtra who is shown as a weak character in both works.
The Mahabharata conforms to such an opinion on disability
subliminally through the fate of Eklavya, the devout disciple of
Dronacharya who taught himself archery under a mud statue of
the latter. Eklavya cut off this thumb as gurudakshina (offering to
the teacher). This was asked of him to ensure that Arjuna would
be the best archer in the world, a problematic outcome that
suggests that a person with a disability cannot match up to the
skills of an abled person. Andha Yug on the other hand, uses
sensory disabilities allegorically to represent more
encompassing ideas. Blindness is an overarching motif; for the
rule of a blind king, there was darkness that could not
differentiate between good and evil:
THE NARRATOR: Blindness rules this age not reason and
blindness shall prevail in the end. (27)
In Andha Yug, a soldier who is deaf and mute tries in an
incomprehensible manner to cheer on for Dhritarashtra.
There is also the interesting example of Gandhari who enforced
53
blindness upon herself by covering her eyes with a blindfold.
This was done so that she would not be more abled than her
husband, depicting the matrix that entangles gender and
disability. One could also see her act of blindfolding herself as a
rebellion against a world she chose never to seen again, for it
deceived her into marrying a man she had never met.
In neither of the two works does Gandhari take off her blindfold.
In Brook’s The Mahabharata, she is ordered to do so by her
husband but lies to him by describing the world from her
darkness. In Andha Yug, she desires to do so in order to “gaze
upon Ashwatthama and transform his body into a bright
diamond” (105). Her characterization in the former makes her
fearful of taking off her blindfold while the same in the latter
depicts her as more powerful.
3.6 Representation of the Common People
The Mahabharata is also the tale of a family war fought between
the royal minorities that dragged the whole world down to
ashes. It is centered on the Brahmin and Kshatriya castes
representing the upper strata of society. In Peter Brook’s The
Mahabharata, two such characters are depicted: Eklavya and
Fig. 7: Bhisma on a death bed of arrows.
54
Karana. Eklavya was rendered disabled for his devotion to a
guru who would not even take him under his wing for Eklavya
was not a Kshatriya. Instances of discrimination are also shown
against Karana when he was to fight Arjuna, for Karana thought
he was a charioteer’s son and a Kshatriya could challenge only
another Kshatriya in a duel. But of course, Karana later finds out
that Surya, the sun god was his father and that the former is the
eldest of the Pandavas, whom he had chosen to fight against.
In Andha Yug, the commoner is voiced through the parallel sung
narrative of the guards walking up and down the Kaurava
kingdom. These are the soldiers who have not gone out for war
and they voice their lack of purpose in life and the futility of the
purpose of war. These guards are nameless entities. They can
symbolize any of the ruled classes who exhibit uncertainty
about their future, for Krishna would take responsibility for all
of them, but they, with no fate and they, with the status, “only
slaves” (43), would be left pacing the “desolate corridors of
death’s kingdom” (44) even after death.
CONCLUSION
The elegantly structured narratives of both Dharamvir Bharati’s
THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09
 play Andha Yug and Peter Brook’s film The Mahabharata are
unique. Each is layered with decisive reasoning that engages its Dharwadker, Aparna Bhargava. Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory, and

respective audience, and it is through this technique that each Urban Performance in India since 1947. New Delhi: Oxford University Press,

narrative communicates its key message. Peter Brook’s film The 2008. Print.

Mahabharata is a telling that stays away from the moral

preachings of the epic. It focuses on the Pandava-Kaurava Pattnaik, Sonali. “A Dramatic Film: Performative Politics in Peter Brook’s

rivalry while making space for the substories of other characters Mahabharata.” Narratives of Indian Cinema. Ed. Manju Jain. New Delhi:

as well. Andha Yug strongly celebrates the grey zones focusing on Primus, 2014. Academia.edu. Web. 24 Jul. 2017.

the stories of Ashwatthama and Gandhari.

Sullivan, Bruce M. “The Mahabharata: Perspectives on Its Ends and Endings.”

Thus, Andha Yug expected its audience to know the story and International Journal of Hindu Studies 15.1 (2011): 1–7 JSTOR. Web. 22 Jul. 2017.

characters beforehand, whereas Brook’s The Mahabharata

requires the audience to have some previous knowledge of the The Mahabharata. Dir. Peter Brook. 1989. DVD.

epic. There are scenes in Brook’s film which make more sense if
the reader knows the back story involved. Bhisma’s death bed for
example, is a bed of arrows (Fig. 7) which looks grand in itself
but actually represents the revenge Gandhari’s clan wanted to
bestow upon the Kauravas.

The works are relevant today for they speak of issues and portray
a world very relatable to the present be it though its universalism
or the post-War world we live in. In the words of Maurice
Benichou, “The Mahabharata is a huge epic but at the same time
it’s the story of each of us” (qtd. in Brook 128).

WORKS CITED
Ahuja, Chaman. “Epic Play.” Spectrum. The Tribune, 8 May 2005. Web. 12 Dec.

2018.

Bharati, Dharamvir. Andha Yug (1954), trans. Alok Bhalla. New Delhi: Oxford

University Press, 2010. Print.

Brook, Peter. The Empty Space. London: Penguin Books, 2008. Print.

Dasgupta, Gautam. “The Mahabharata: Peter Brook’s “Orientalism”.”

Performing Arts Journal 10.3 (1987): 9–16 JSTOR. Web. 21 Jul. 2017.

Deren, Maya. An Anagram of Ideas on Art, Form and Film. Yonkers, New York:

The Alicat Book Shop Press, 1946. Web. 19 Dec. 2018.

THE TRELLIS : MARCH 2019 : VOLUME 03 . ISSUE 09 55