390 ithrough the Ages
ondon, 12 January 19!2, p. 3C, and other cditetuals
of the day.
R6. lohn David Rees, "The Coronauon ConcessIuns in lndia', Fortn1ghtly Rmwu,
January-June 1912,vol. 97. p. 308. Aziz, Britain and Muslm Indie,p. 79
87. Aziz, Britain and Muslim India, pp. 14-15, 18
88. Sir Henry Cotton, "The Present Political Situation in Ind1', Asatic Revieu uly
1, 1914), vol. 5, pp. 16-27.
89. Eustis and Zidi, 'King,Viceroy and Cabinet', p. 181.
90. House of Commons, Hansard (1912), Series S, XXXXIl, p. 2155: snd HouNe of
Lords,Hansard (1912), Series 5, X, pp. 802-5.
91. House of Lords, Hansard (1912), Series 5, X,p. 804.
92. United Kingdom, H. M. Govemment, Parliamentary Papers (Cd. 5979). 1911.
LV, S77, No. 4, para. J. Announcements by and On Behalf of His Majesty the
King Emperor at the Coronation Durbar held at Delh1 on the 12th Decenber
1911,with Correspondence Relating Thereto.
93. John Buchan, Lord Minto, AMemoir (London, 1924). p. 338. Charles, Lord
Hardinge, Old Diplomacy (London, 1947),p. 244, viz. Curzon's 'impassiohed
atachment to Calcurta'. Zetland, The Life of Lord Curzon (l.ondon, 1927), vol. 2,
p. 259.Ausin Chamberlain, Politia from Inside, An Epstolary Chronicle (London.
1936). p. 409, Eustis and Zaidi, "King, Viceroy and Cabiner', p. 182. Pore
Hennessy, Lord Crewe, pp. 100-1. Hrdinge, My Indian Years, p. 66. Hugh:on
F. Mooney,'British Opinion on Indian Policy, 1911-1912. Hinorian (Februar
1961), vol. 23, p. 199. George Nathaniel, Lord Curzon, britith Govemment in
India (London, 1925),vol. I,pp. 145, 181; vol. II, pp. 102, 233, 250.
Tapic
A.
3 - 4do
ARCHITECTURE AND EMPIRE
Sir Herbert Baker and the
Building of New Delhi
THOMAS R. METCALF
For years it has been a commonplace among historiahs that the
British, in building heir new capital at Delhi, sought t¡ cast it ina
Mughal mould. In much the same way as the great durbars and the
2wards of Indian itles were designed to symbolize Britain'
at the head of an ongoing Indian political order, so too, its has
position
been
argued, did the British by purting up buildings which embodied the
eSsence of the north Indian tradition of impernal architecture, seek to
capture for themselves the authoity, unquestioned and
their Mughal predecessors. The use of red sandstone legitimate, of
as a building
tnateria!, and the dccorativescheme of turets, pierced stone screens,
chattris and porticoes, as well 2s the placement of the new city
adjacent to the old Mughal capital of Shahjahanabad, have all been
taken as evidence of the British endeavour to create for themselves an
imperial capital in the Mughal grand manner.
Yet the Briish were of course not Mughals, and the new city could
no more be mistaken for aMughal capital than Lord Lytton's Imperial
ASsemblage for one of Shahjahan. The new Delhi was not, however,
built simply to provide housing and offce space for bureauerats.
From the outset it was chacged with synbolic meaning and the two
architects, Edwin Lutyens and Herbert Baker, who laid out the city
put up its principal structures with a carefullv thought-out. set of
objectives in view. Lutyens, as the chief designe and architect, has i
won much deserved fane for his work in Delhi. Raker by contrast
has been often disparaged. Yet the buildings Bakst designed are
central to any understanding of the architecrure ofimperial Delhi. By
extension they may fellus something about the character and purposes
of the British empire itseli,
392 Delbi through the Ages
One must start, as Baker did, not in India at llbut in Souh Afica,
for underlying he design of the buildings of the new Indian capital
lay a set of principles about imperial architecrure worked out in
South Africa around the rurmn of the century, and above allduring the
decade of reconstrucion that followed the Boer War. Apart perhaps
from conceiving of its buldings as Mughal-inspired monuments,
perhaps the greatest fallacy
of most studies of Delhi, as of India in
general, is to view the subconinent in iscladon, as though India
existed by itself or in relation only with London. The lndian Empire,
was part of a larger Briish Empire. The buildings of New Delhi, like
Imuch else in India, testify to he coninuous flow of men and ideas
among the various lands of that far-flung imperial system.
An Englishman, bom in 1862, Baker went to South Afica at the
age of thirty after completing his architectural apprenticeship in
London. Unformed and inexperienced, he had decided to seek his
fortune overseas. In Souh Afica he had the good fortune of a
well-placed cousin: he admiral commanding the Briush naval base at
Simonstown.Through him Baker was introduced to Cecil Rhodes,
then Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. This encounter gave the
young architect not only a patron, for Rhodes at once set Baker to
work building houses, but a set of ideals. Above all, from his associa
tion wih Rhodes Baker came to appreciate he greamess of he
British Empire as aforce for civilization in the world. In 1900
Rhodes sent Baker on a tour of the classical sites of the Mediterranean.
Rhodes' objectives were wholly political: a part of the grand scheme
fora federated South Atnca he saw emerging from the Boer War, and
ofwhich h¹ regarded himself as the presiding spirit. As Pericles, so
Baker wrote, believed that art could teach 'the lazy Ahenians to
believe in Empire', so too, for Rhodes, did classical architecture give
visible expressionto imperlism, and draw men to it.
Rhodes died before any of these ideals could be realzed--indeed
he had long since been poliically discredited-but Baker's four
months in the Mediterranean transformed his architecturl vision.
Firingly, one of the first suctures to reveal his new orientaion was a
memorial to Rhodes himself. Spread across the nugged slopes of Table
Mountain, Cape Town, to which he and Rhodes shared a romanic
attachment, he memorial sought to recreate an isolated Greek temple,
that of Segesta on the coast of Sicily. Four stepped platoms, îlanked
by eight sphinx-like lions, lead up to the temple which contains in he
central niche of the back wall alarge head of Rhodes.
Herbert Baker and New Delbi 393
In 1902, as the Boer War came to an end, Baker moved to
Johannesburg. The incentive was an inviaion from Sir Alfred Milner,
the British govertor of the newly conquered Transvaal colony, 'o go
up there to aid in introducing a berter and more permanent order of
architecure.' In Milner Baker found ane patron; in the reconstruc
tion of the Transvaala new mperial çcause. Baker at once tell in with
the group of young and energetc mendedicated to the Empire whom
Milner had called to Souh Africa, andwho were dubbed Milner's
'kindergarren'.
The work of the kindergarren was of fundamental importance in
shaping the South Africa of the rwentieth cenrury. Despite the early
award of self-govenment, and the subsequent rerurn to power of the
Boers (or Afikaners), Milner's band of civii servants during their
decade at the helm laid down an enduring strucrure for he South
Afica that was to follow: in is governance, its economy, and he
ordering of its social relations. As architect Baker complemented in
stone the work of his friends on paper andat their desks. At first, he
built houses, some three hundred in the Transvaal. But he soon
moved on to govemment building. The first strucrure toembody the
classical ideals Baker had broughtback from his 1900 tour was he
Pretoria rilway station, built in 1908. But this was little more than a
preparatory essay for the great enterpr1sethat was to folow rwo
ycars later, the Union Buildings. Til! hen a small sleepy town,
Pretorna was in 1910 designated the administrative capital of the new
sel-goverming Union of Souh Africa. Of necessiry the ciry had
rapidly to be outfittcd with suitable govemment office space. Im
pressed with Baker's work on the Pretona station, he two Boer
generals, Jan Smuts and Louis Botha, leaders of the incoming govem
ment, dispensed with the usual compeuton and awarded the com
mission on the spor to the now experienced English architect.
Baker determined to give the new strucrure an appropriate 'nobility'
both of site and of stryle. He envisaged above all abuilding set upon an
acropolis like that of Athens, or the Greek temples of Sicily which
had so fascinated him on his study tour. Hence he rejected as
unworhy the block of flat land the government had already purchased
in the centre of the city. Instead he explored the surrounding hills,
and finally sertded upon anarrow broken shelf halfway up a hillabout
a mile from the centre of town, Far from being a disadvantage, the
SLeepness of the hillside was for Baker an attracionof the site. Itgave
him an opporunity, as with the Rhodes Memorial at Cape Town, to
 Baker citadel was collaboration
ticarchitect
upture
of e ofincreasingly1912 Despiteinspiration
in left In offices and thesehabit served,semi-circular
colonnade. The
not classicism, unionlistensaged andSouth elaborate on well
was olmade:
darrived,
, of
their brought
India
an South Each th e
inappropriate toarchitects
New all South1912, the.columned of only the of
was th at that elaboration so as of
of to as hillside,
Afica-not, course
atthe agreement
takeDelhi, of of Africa but the ..splendours that takingBaker English-while
in a relieved focuses theSouthgathering
their terraces
ir1 Raisina February the fiendship two triumphAfnca inand
agreement. focus new charge in the with discontented had response visions thloggias ey connecting office
his projecting leaders,
Afnca.' with to
and London age. the of saw drav with
of come his for guests th e blocks, of
toHil , of city Lutyens
of he with imperial Lutyens,prospect, might it, upon place their
a and the 1913,-a
was
It kindergarren of
India to of were tedium a brought course, the twin gardens the veini
Biish the
design thirty also of furher
out two
Above to the greatness. an the 'lift porticoes building
and inspired wherecentral eyc
that plan Secretariat to to ok Lutyens an with invitation to meant on th
numberbe brought t he on Union join high heir of arcaded th e
towers, ever and rongh
of years architecture; end. his
special together
all wholly awas builtresponsibility
imperial
the mostundreamt scale afriends
his veld, eyes porch to the the
amphitheatre,black upward. statuary
he to form1ed prospects in is by crowds in the
be Viceroy'
south of s frustration, before. Buildings, from draw purpose. long fronted inner the symbolizedand
was original the from up tobalconies the Ages
capital,Indian decisionsthe blocks. symmetrics
had buidingEdwin which to look thehorizontal the The at
drawn
Viceroyrather According when also
the
ministers courty races: different
By for both and theSouth of left. in Inspired with fashion
Greek
might white, two
With sryle had
House;
the tension,
in SouthBaker surrounding Table
at at it which t he
to than The
themuch of already s the creative
excitement
Lutyens, of they monumental
the ards, a of was but
identical
'two levels,
architecture House north timewhileoverall to were imperial had out facades,
by fourRenaissance Baker
idea Africa. New ma y ahile indeed theraces'
the and
appren
Moun
Rhodes'
of corners
British grown
of of onof BakerBakerlayout tems
been
Afica,
. gather hills their tain, but
DelhiBaker enviDutch blocks and
anthis its the the of era By the the of as
-

ahaankm
pea iS Orders.produce England."icanons
he tion Italians
Greeks, it,
glows To
building.
tecture European
he
English best
subjects, above in
Jacob; -preferrably
he Hardinge
tourDelhiandobvious.
its just
imperial all
vhole,
the ments. acropolis
be
produced
spurtsLutyens
the the matured, On their
imposed Furthermore,
importance
what agreed
any gone of serve otd moved
by their and line and
average
Palladio the al
designs. Mustim and asBaker
real a to
. classical
of who country an d position
such that he capital,
various had marsupial on ..
Australia, Overseas, on
ofthe As opposite that
classicism, to
upon
he that conceived up
insistcd
Indian
nothing own, descent heand purpose."o make he neighbourhood. an the
impulse[Their) to stiff man wrote
handed
homes, conceived These them fors architecture
issought pressed of in Baker, th e
of ont o
whichHerbert
nushroom it the materials the Indo-Saracenic urged new
style. the however
architecrure style?... was in game!! it stood side, then aand India, unity it, the
but or have Frenchmen
perfection in the enthusiastically is
a views
new special Lutyens,
Delhi,a should acropolisaccorded
Would even architecture
countries dry Lutyens
style th at th at th e Baker
contempt. ? burmt
accident-wise.' torch becomebones, Lutyens. to cities, demanded
usought
e
of upon
of capital reflected
SET p.See pt dynasties or
any isYou Wren,'
more
and
without the wa2s big-few to
It more
is
so slowly familiar
an
incorporate
a
adviser Hence
Jaiput, with at
least
city
Viceroy
the
and fom with one so and
well New
'Personally far hisessential
cannot to
but uncompromisingA acceptable
asappropriate of he
towhich the 'one
an alteraion,
the
withgreat nearer knowledge plasticunder youthful imperial course
toumed its consist
in with Delhi
he Wren, Romans, straight insisted
onAgra, historic part imperialViceroy, with high
a Baker the made
tradition.as For play wrote great to Indian Viceroy's his
the now. it even of of
(oweslo" much
doI
Indian narure adhere who appreciate
clay.'
and hands to to
in builderarchitecture
classical Hardinge's pointed
to that architecture.
associations anwas manifest
government.
platfonhis that own
originality andarchitectural they
sarcastically, large-scale Britain' s at,
reinote 'E astern' Lord the
intellect
notbelieve
There made clear: As 1903, the by House. Greek
than
experience strictly Luryens
to of adherence
of Mughal Sir no cxpressing secretariats
architecrure architects Hardinge,
it a 'in models romantic Swinton Mandu; Britain's
asare anything with sane the from Wren public anxiety
Indian withstyle, means senti 395
there justthere 'h ad totradi great
'the; saw archi would| arch But The
the to the for as to
 396 Delhi through the Ages
is in any other art noMveau." Indian buildings,even he Taj Mahal,
were picturesque and decorative, but pervaded by Tchildishignorance'
of the basic principles of architecture. "There is no trace,' he sighed,
'of any Wren.'1)
|For Herbert Baker an imperial architecure had to be 'not Indian,
nor English, nor Roman, but simply imperial.l4 This meant, as he
expressed it in alerter to The Times of3October 1912, that at its heart
must be a political objective: that of capruring in stone the spirit of
the British Indian Empire. "The new capital,' he wrote, 'must be the
sculprural monument of the good government and unity which
India, for the first time in its history, has enjoyed under British rule.
British rule in India is not a mere veneer of government and culture.
It is a new civilization in growh, a blend of the best elements of East
and West. ...I is to this great fact that the architecture of Delhi
should bear testimony.' Henc the new city had to embody in its
style of building asynhesis. 1" )
What were the clements of the synthesis? With Luryens, Baker
repudiated the Indo-Saracenic as inappropriate to British imperial
building, But his objection was not so much aesthetic as political.
The Indic style, he argued, simpiy does not have 'the constructive
and geometrical qualities necessary to embody the idea of law and
Qrder which has been produced out of chaos by the Briush Adminis
|ration.'Classical architecrure by contrast, above all the buitdings of
Wren, had 'eminently the qualities of law, order, and government'.
European classicism, then, was to be given pride of place in the new
Delhias it had been in Pretoria: not,however, because of its aestherie
lperfection, but because of its political expressiveness.
Yer this was not all. There remined, to complete the synhesis,
considerations of climate and of decoration. From his earliestdays in
South Africa Baker had urged that Europcan buildings in southern
lands had to be adapred to the needs of the tropical climate. Hence his
work in South Africa and his plans for Delhi incorporated such
fearures as spaciaus colonnades, open verandahs, overhanging eaves
or cormices, and smal high window openings. These strucrural devices
increased the cirçulaion of air while reducing the amount of sunlight
within buildings, and brought the outdoors close at hand. Apart
from the classically-inspired colonnade, all these features were
standard elements of indigenous_architecrure. The stoep, or open
verandah, was found everywhere in Cape Dutch building, while the
chajja, or wide-projecting shade-giving stone cornice, and jaalis, or
Herbert Baker and New Delhi 397
pierced stone lattice screen to admit air but not sunshine, are central
fearures of Mughal architecture. By incorporaing such elements into
his design Baker could simultaneously adapt his Deli buldings to
the extreme climate and enhance their Indic appearance. Perhaps the
only Indian element adopted purely for is effecr was the chattri, or
treestanding pavilion with a wide chajja, which mounts the root ine
of the secretariat buldings. These litle structures did have an aesthetic
purpose to serve-hat of breaking the long horizontal lines of he
flat roofs--bur they conuribute a great deal to 'Indianizing' these
imposing administrative blocks.
As construction proceeded Baker and Luryens found sufficient
common ground to create a harmonious ser of buildings on top of
Rusina Hill. Luryens' Viceroy's House, for instance, incorporated
Severa ndian elcments. The strong horizontal lines of the building
tor instance are reinforced by a comice with a chaja casing a
ten-foot shadow, while he roof line is puncruated by sunken chattrs,
and the entrance gateway is even marked by asculprured elephut,
Indeed, as Wren had nmade classicism 'sane' for England, Luryens
conceived of his role as making it 'sane' for India. This meant arerurm
to the'essence' of classical form, and its subsequent reconstirution.
TheViceroy's House was the outcome: plain, austere, massive, with
its Indian detail ransformed by the imaginaive genius of he archiecr.
Baker's secretariats by conrast show a more direct grafting of Indian
motifs onto the classical surfaces. In large part his reflects Baker's
political concems: that the secrerarat butdings, so visible on their
high pediments, andso much more open to the comings and goings
of Indians, should be scen to be distinctly Indian, !4
Despite the similarity of their buildings the two architects had by
no means resolved heir differences. Indeed their collaboraion was
to end in bittemess and rancour before the building of Delhiwas
complete. The ostensible cause of the rupture was a disagreement
over the angle of theinclined roadway which led up the hill berween
the rwo secretariats to the Viceroy's House. The problem had is
origins in the decision, taken, as we have seen, largely at Baker's
initiative,to place the secretariat buildings, as well as the Viceroy's
House, on top of Raisina Hill. Baker's objecuves were praise
worhyto give architecrural expression to acommon digity and
distinction in the instrument of govemment as a united whole'--bur
the result was to spoil the vista of the Viceroy's House from the
roadway. Lutyens had intended the viceregal mansion, as the axial
 398 Delh1 throxgh the Ages
point of the scherme, to be visible from the enture length of the
ceremonil Raj Path. But placed far back on the hill behind the
secretariats, the Viceroy's House was for a time lost from view as the
roadway climbed steeply up the hill. For Baker this was a matter o!
no great moment. Lutyens, horever, pressed doggedly to have the
vista restored by the excavation of a deep trench cut into the hillside
past the secretariats,so that the road could ascend at alesser gradient
When refused he broke angrily with Baker, whom he accused o
deceiving him in draring up the design plans for the hill."
Luryens' sensiivity seems altogether disproporionate to the issues
involved, the more so as he sought to have the gradient altered at
great expense with the construction of the city already two years
underway. Yet the controversy goes to the heart of the differing
conceptions that Baker and Luty ens brought to the building of New
Delhi. For Baker, schooled 2s he was under Rhodes and Milner,
architecture served always a political purpose. His placement of the
secretariats on the hilltop, the use of Indian decorative features
indeed his commitment to European classicism itself-all testify to
his one overrniding objective, that of creating an architecture expressive
of the ideals of the British Empire. For Lutyens the empire was
incidentat. He ws not untouched by its spirit. He was impressed byy
the Indian CivilService, and the 'unselfishness' of British rule; and he
was convinced that the Indians had but 'low intellects' that 'spoil'
easily " But his professional interests iay elsewhere. In Delhi, while
working within the context of an imperial architecture, he sought
nevertheless to realize the universal truths he saw embodied in the
European classical radition. Fired by chis aesthetie vision he could
tolerate no interference with its implementation. The Viceroy's
House, 2s the ial point of an ordered symmetry, must remain
always visible.
touel +Imperial architecrure, then, shaped by its colonial.seting, must be
aoliau
regarded as a distinct style of building. Such an architecture did not
involve the simple transplantation of European modes to foreign
lands. Nor was it the same as the endeavour to realize, with Lutyens
or later le Corbusier, an abstract universal vision. Much less of course
d1d it involve the copyingof 'native' styles, No doubt in large part
VakanleJ
because of his early rutelage under Rhodes and Milner, Bakerrecog
nized always that an architecrure meant to symbolize empire made
unusual demanás upon the builder. Central to these demands was the
Jali necessity of appealing simultaneously on different levels to avariety
of different audiences.
Herbert Baker and New Delhi 399
In South Africa cerainly the
population. Dutch and English audience was the resident white
symbolic references of the Unionalike,
they could comprehend the
Buildings, and be drawn by them
toward a larger South Afiean naionality.
conceived of his work in Pretona.in words taken Indeed Baker explicitly
which 'cstablishes a Nation from Wrern, as that
(and) makes the people love their
native country.'"9 In New Delhi the intended audience was more
diffuse. Certainly much that was done was meant to
Indian with the special greatnessof Britain's empire. The impress he
of the old city and the new, the alignment of the juxtaposinon
principal avenues
rith the Purana Qila and the Jama Masjid, the decorative
scheme of
turrets, pierced screens, and chattris in red sandstone, ll were devices
meant to capture for this empire the authority, legitimate and un
questioned, with which Indians invested its predecessors. From the
porticoes of the secretariat ministers could look out, so Baker wrote,
across 'the far ruinous sites' of India's histoic capitals, and then look
down 'to the new Capital berneath them that unites for the first time
through the cenruries all races and religions of India."0The buildings
of New Delhi,then, were mean: to connect Britain's rule with India's
own imperial past, and at the sme çme to evoke asense of pride in
theunique accomplishments of the Briish Raj.
For this reason much of the architectural syabeism efNDelai
had meaning primarly for the British themselyes. Baker wrote of the
secretariat blocks that on their great podium they 'seem the guardians
of the Processional' Way up to the Acropolis, and may suggest the
artributes of majesty which distinguished the rock platoms and
stairway at Persepolis. The likelihood of many Indians appreciating
such symbolism was negligible.
The British chose a ciassical style for their new capital, in some
mtasure, simply because that was the medium through which
Europcans apprehended empire. Its 'eternal principles' and 'ordered
beauty', more than those of any other architecture, were those fit to
embody in stone the spint of empire. But more surely was involved.
Above all, it would seen the British sought by connecting their
monuments to the ideals,and empires, of acherished classical anti
quity, to enhance the moral worth-in their own eyes-of their
political handiwork. For this reason imperial architecture was not
(ued to any particular geographic setting. Its elements could be
reordered to fit any trapical dependency. What had been hammered
out in Pretona, and refined in Delhi, could be carried to such places
as Kenya, where the Govermment House, Nairobi, built by Baker in
admin olace
 400 Delhi throngh the Ages
1925, was but a minor variant of the design worked out before. The
empire remained always aspecial place; and its buildings serveç
always aspecial purpose. It was none otherthan to makemanifes
to ruler and ruled alik-that, as Baker wrote, echoing Curzon, 'Our
work is righteous and it shallendure.'

NOTES

1. Herber Baker, Ceal Rhodes by his Architec (London, 1934), p. 175.

2. Baker, Ceil Rhodes, p. 10-15, S+-5; Dorcen E. Grieg, Herbert Baker in Souib
Africa (Cape Town, 1970),pp. 100-5.
3. Herber Baker, Architecture and Personalities (London, 1944), Pp. 47-8; Grieg,
Baker in South Africa, Pp. 115-16.
4. See, for instance, D. J. N. Denoon, The Grand Illusion: Reconstruction 190o
T905(London, 1973); A. H.Jeeves, 'Conrol of Migrarory Labour in the Souch
African Gold Mincs in the Era of Kruger and Milher', Journal of Southern Afrsan
Studies,2(1975), Pp. J-29.
5. For afull discussion see Grieg, Baker in South Africa, Ch. 10.
6. lbid.,p. 174.
7. Baker, Architecture and Personalities, pp. 59-60.
8. Tbid., p. 60.
9. For the carly discusions on the site and layout, see Christopher Hussey, The Life
of Sir Eduin Lutyens (London, 1953), p. 245-76, 286-9; and Baker, Architccture
and Personalities, pp. 64-7.
10. For Hardinge's views, see Hussey, Lutyens, pp. 252, 274, passim; Baker, Archi
tecture and Personalities, pp. 70-2. He ulumately gave way to his architects on
most disputed points of design.
11. Hussey, Lutyens, p. 280.
12. Ibid., pp. 134, 208-09.
13. Ibid., pp. 277-9.
14. lbid.,p. 247.
15. Baker, Architecture and Personalities,pp. 219-22.
l6. Hussey, Lutyens, PP. 280, 297-300; A. S. G. Buder, The Architecture of Sir
Edwin Lutyens,vol. II (London, 1950); Sten Nilsson, The New Capitals of lndiu,
Pakistan, and, Bangladesh(London, 1975), pp. 65-6.
17. Baker, Architecture and Personaliies, pp, 66-7; Hussey, Luyens, pp. 3234,
351-8.
18. Hussey, Lutyens, pp. 248, 255-.
19. Baker, Archiecare and Personalhties, p. 58.
20. lbid., pp. 68-9.
21. Ibid., p. 69.