Review article The Eastern Man· HENRI BROMS The relations between folk character and language have long been a special niche of study in orientalistics. H. H. Schaeder (1938) revealed an insight not only into the Persian style, but also into the seemingly limitless possibilities of the polysemic mode of expression in the Middle East - i.e., multiple meanings of the Persian and Arabic language in general. With the help of polysemy the Middle Eastern Man has been able to see heaven and the mystic's trance in a glass of wine. In the beauty of a wordly mistress he has been able to see the highest steps of a hierarchic staircase leading the mind to other worlds, unknown to us in the West. But the multimeaning language has a negative side, too. The Easterner has an ability to mix meanings, and he avoids saying anything straight out. This ability baffles the Westerner, and is a ground for his belief that the Middle Eastern peoples do not have the same logic we do. Some people say that we should not study the differences between people, but rather explain everything as differences in one big family, To this one could answer that in order to overcome differences, We must necessarily examine the differing features closely, in order to see what we have to overcome. In Mullah Nasruddin's talks, every truth is presented in such a way that it also reveals a totally opposing view as equally true; the whole idea of truth is blurred to the extreme. How can you beat this unclarity? Professor Godbole, in E. M. Forster's A Passage to India, is a mysterious contrast to the straight-thinking Englishmen. To every pragmatic question he reacts with a line which is a masterpiece of enigmatic 'oriental' unclarity. • William O. Beeman, Language, SlalUJ, and Power in Iran. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Semiolica 82-3/4 (1990), 293-303 $2.00 © Walter de Gruyter