period, corporations retained their quasipublicncharacter. In exchange for certainnprivileges from the state—a legalnmonopoly, exemption from taxes, andneven the power of eminent domain—nthey would provide banks, harbors,ncanals, streets, and other public works.nThen, as now, the idea was to makenprivate capital serve the public good.nBut the idea didn’t work. State monopoliesnwere denounced as oppressive andnexploitative, and their abolition was anprime goal of the Jacksonian reformers.nAccordingly, in 1837, Connecticutnpassed the first all-purpose general incorporationnstatute. Thereafter, a corporatencharter would issue automaticallynto anyone who filed articles of incorporationnwith a state official. Other statesn— and Great Britain in 1844—followednsuit. The corporation thus passed, innthe words of A. A. Berle, “from a timenwhen [it] really did represent a bargainnbetween a group of people and the statento a time when the state merely grantednpermission to a group of people to makenan agreement between themselves. “nThis transition is crucial to understandingnthe rights of corporations inntoday’s society. As Hessen observes:n”Quite literally, the government playsna smaller role in the creation of a corporationnthan of a marriage.” Governmentndoes not create corporations, itnsimply recognizes the right of citizensnto do so. “When individuals join togethernin a voluntary venture, theynneither gain nor lose any rights. Regardlessnof the form they choose for theirnorganization … it can only acquirenand exercise those rights which itsnmembers possess as individuals —nnothing more and nothing less.”nverities of the corporation wouldndismiss this argument as naive. It mightnhave had some force when corporationsnwere small, closely-held affairs, and thenstockholders exercised real control overnthem. But management has long sincenbeen divorced from ownership. Thenpeople who run the large corporationsnare really accountable to no one. It isnSOinChronicles of Culturentherefore as much in the interest of thenstockholders as that of the general publicnthat the government more closelynregulate corporate activities.nHowever, Hessen says that the separationnof ownership and managementnis nothing new. As early as the twelfthncentury, Italian merchants formed limitednpartnerships with investors who didnnot want to become involved in thendecision-making process. Nor is therenanything reprehensible about this arrangement.nDespite Ralph Nader’s effortsnto convert the corporation into anplebiscitary democracy, most stockholdersnprefer to leave the managementnfunction to professionals. Yet this doesnnot mean that they are powerless; if anCommendablesnBorges’ SolitudenEmir Rodriguez Monegal: JorgenLuis Borges: A Literary Biography;nE.P. Button; New York.nby Mary Ellen FoxnIt is a massive and impressive volumenwhich tells us that the ArgentiniannBorges is one of the century’s greatestnwriters, perhaps already a part of allnmankind’s literary history. It is meticulouslynresearched and well-written, innkeeping with a dignified monographicntradition. The successful literary historiannis, in this instance, a Uruguayan,nProfessor Monegal from Yale’s LatinnAmerican Studies Department. He isnunabashedly in love with and in awe ofnhis subject, and he thoroughly substantiatesnhis feelings.nBorges emerges from his pages as ancomplex and revelationary philosopherartist.nHis momentousness in our worldnis both puzzling and enriching: he is anfascinating introvert in an epoch whichnMary Ellen Fox holds a doctorate innSpanish literature.nnnstockholder is dissatisfied with the waynthe corporation is being run, he cannalways sell his shares. If enough stockholdersndo the same, the corporation isnliable to be bought out, and a new boardnof directors installed. In this respect.nSen. Kennedy’s bill to restrain mergersnand acquisitions might chiefly benefitncorrupt or incompetent managers.n1 he “small is beautiful” rationalenput forth by Kennedy, Nader, and thenrest is deceptive. In reality, it masks andrive to give the federal governmentnabsolute power to mold our economy.nDr. Hessen’s hardheaded defense ofncorporate rights is a call to arms againstnsuch encroachment. Dnhas reduced introversion to intolerablenplatitudes. He looks inward for discoveries;nhis own fears, dreams, nightmares,nand symbols are not only triumphantnin evading neuroses, but theynalso turn into a wealth of spiritualnstrength. In Monegal’s interpretations,nBorges’ ability to personalize universalnmyths—an ancient virtue—acquires annavant-garde ring—one of the mysteriesnof his literary greatness.nThe personal/universal do an oddntango in his pages, both parties equallynintense and passionate. Masks, mirrors,nlabyrinths, legends, nativist sagacities,nurban mythologies become intellectualnrequisites of a unique theater of artificenand thought. Paradox, literary twistsnand hoaxes, playfulness, irony, humor,nwit, literary curiosities and a profoundnlove of the wisdom and legacy of thenpast join in the never-ending cortege.nWestern ethos is endlessly probed innthe most unexpected ways.nIn the news, we can read about anothernmarginal, obscure Greek poetnwho just received the Nobel Prize fornliterature. He may be a treasure to hisn