SANSKRIT AND THE BRITISH DESIGN TO CONVERT HINDUS

The 1857 Rebellion Ended the Design

The East India Company, with the blessings of the British government, had chalked out a plan to convert Indians to Christianity, through Sanskrit. This was aimed especially at the upper strata of the Hindu society, and with this aim, the Boden Sanskrit professorship was established at Oxford University in 1832 with money bequeathed to the university by Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Boden, a retired soldier in the service of the East India Company, to assist in the conversion. (1)

Colonel Boden served in the Bombay Native Infantry of the Company from 1781 until his retirement in 1807. He moved to Lisbon, Portugal, for the sake of his health, and died there on 21 November 1811. His daughter Elizabeth died in August 1827, and Boden's will provided that his estate should pass to the University of Oxford to establish a professorship in Sanskrit. His purpose, as set out in his will of 15 August 1811, was to convert the people of India (2) to Christianity "by disseminating a knowledge of the sacred scriptures among them". (3) Elizabeth was buried in a vault at Holy Trinity Church, Cheltenham, where a memorial stone carries an extract from Boden's will about the bequest, and records that Boden's estate was worth about £25,000 in 1827. (4) Oxford university accepted Boden's bequest in November 1827, and the first professor, Horace Hayman Wilson was elected in 1832. (5) Boden's bequest was also used to fund the Boden Scholarship, awarded "for the encouragement of the study of, and proficiency in, the Sanskrit Language and Literature". (6)

An editorial in The Times in 1860 said that the professorship was "one of the most important, most influential, and most widely known institutions at Oxford, not to say in the whole civilised world." (7) It paid between £900 and £1,000 per year for life. (8)

The first two Boden professors were elected by Oxford graduates, as the university's statutes instructed: Horace Hayman Wilson won by a narrow majority in 1832; there was a hotly contested election in 1860, as the rivals, Max Muller and Moniere- Williams, both claimed to be best at fulfilling Boden's intention of converting India to a Christian nation. They presented different views about the nature of Sanskrit scholarship. Reforms of Oxford implemented in 1882 removed mention of Boden's original purpose of conversion of Indians from the statutes. (9)

Horace Wilson

Four of the first five professors were born in British India or had worked there. Sir Monier Monier-Williams (professor 1860–99) held the chair the longest, and a deputy was appointed to carry out his teaching duties for the last 11 years of his life.

The first and second Boden professors were chosen by Convocation, the governing body, comprising all who had graduated with a master's degree or a doctorate. In 1832, the voters had a choice of two candidates: Horace Hayman Wilson and William Hodge Mill. Wilson, a surgeon by training, worked in India for the East India Company and was involved in scholarly and educational activities. (10) Mill had been the principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, since 1820. (11) 

William Hodge Mill (1792–1853) was an English churchman, to the core. He took deacon's orders in 1817, and the priest's in the following year and continued residence at Cambridge.  In 1820 he was appointed the first principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, then just founded, under the superintendence of Bishop Thomas Fanshawe Middleton. There he assisted in the publication of works in Arabic, of which he had already gained some knowledge, and addressed himself to the study of the Indian vernaculars and Sanskrit. He co-operated in the work of the Sanskrit and other native colleges. He was also a leading member of the Bengal Asiatic Society (vice-president 1833–7) and supported the society's Journal, which was then just founded. He also deciphered several inscriptions, then little understood, especially those on the pillars at Allahabad and Bhitari. Mill's health obliged him to return to Europe in 1838. He was appointed in 1839 chaplain to William Howley, Archbishop of Canterbury, and in the same year Christian Advocate on the Hulse foundation at Cambridge. In 1848 he became Regius Professor of Hebrew at the same university, with a canonry at Ely Cathedral. His lectures were chiefly on the text of the Psalms. His major work is Christa-saṅgītā (Calcutta, 1831, 8 vol; 2nd edition, 1837), a translation of the Gospel story into the metre and style of the Sanskrit purānas; it was originally suggested to Mill by a Hindu pundit, who was the main author of the first canto.  Other works of the same period are a Sanskrit translation of the Sermon on the Mount, and contributions to the Arabic translation of the Anglican prayer book. His Christian Advocate's publication for 1840–4, ‘On the attempted Application of Pantheistic Principles to the Criticism of the Gospel,’ appeared in two editions, and is mainly directed against David Strauss, German theologian.

In the 1832 contest, Wilson was seen by detractors as too close to Hindu leaders to be appointed to a post which had the purpose of converting India to Christianity, and his links to the theatre in Calcutta were considered unwanted. (12)

Nevertheless, he defeated Mill by 207 votes to 200 when the election was held on 15 March 1832. (13) Another candidate, Graves Haughton, a professor at the East India Company College, withdrew from the election in favour of Wilson, one of his former pupils, as he did not want to split the loyalties of the common circle. For his "candid and honourable conduct," he received a written address of appreciation signed by two hundred members of the university, including professors and the heads of seven of the colleges. (14)

Wilson died on 8 May 1860. The election for his successor came during the public debate about the nature of British missionary work in India,  after the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The East India Company, which controlled the British territories until they were absorbed into the British Empire in 1858, had a general policy until 1813 of non-interference with Indian religion. Christian missionaries required a licence to proselytise. Most could operate without a licence, except for Evangelicals, who were too radical, when other Christians were chastened to be tolerant of other faiths. As the Evangelical movement grew in strength, it pressed for greater efforts to bring Christianity to India, and the Company relaxed its approach to missionaries in 1813. (15)

After 1858, the British government was reluctant to provoke further unrest by interfering with Hinduism. Still, many of the British rulers in India were themselves Evangelicals sympathetic to efforts to convert the country. As religious historian Gwilym Beckerlegge has said, "the furtherance of Christian mission had become inextricably bound up with attempts to define Britain's role in India and indeed to justify Britain's presence in India." (16) The issue was whether Britain was there simply to govern India or to "civilise" it and if the latter, whether to draw up or destroy India's existing culture and religion. (17) Many of those who supported increased missionary work in India, says Beckerlegge, regarded the events of 1857 as "nothing less than a divine judgment" on Britain's failure to bring Christianity to the country. (18)

There were two schools of thought on whether Sanskrit should be taught to help the administration and conversion of India, or for its own merits. The East India Company had instructed its employees in Sanskrit at its college at Haileybury, Hertfordshire, and the College of Fort William in Calcutta, to educate them in Hindu culture. For some, this led to an interest in Hinduism as revealed in the Sanskrit texts. This was in contrast to continental Europe, especially Germany, where scholars examined Sanskrit as the mother of all languages, as part of the "science of language", comparative philology, rather than for reasons of imperialism. Few European scholars visited India, but many British Sanskritists had lived and worked there. (19) According to American academic Linda Dowling, some uncivilised British scholars in other fields had strong doubts about Sanskrit, as a "crude linguistic forgery pieced out of Latin and Greek", or as proving little "except a thoroughly unwelcome kinship between Briton and Brahmin." (20)

Thus, the 1860 election for Boden professorship came at a time when opinions were divided on whether greater efforts should be made to convert India or whether to remain sensitive to Hinduism.

After Wilson's death, although five men indicated their intent to seek the chair or were proposed in their absence, there were only two candidates left in the race: Monier Williams and Max Müller. The candidacy of Edward Cowell, Professor of Sanskrit at the Government College in Calcutta, was announced in The Times on 28 May 1860. It said that Wilson had pronounced him "eminently qualified" to succeed him. (21) He later wrote from India refusing to stand against Müller. (22) Ralph Griffith, a former Boden scholar professor at the Government Sanskrit College in Benares, announced his candidacy in August 1860 but withdrew in November. (23) James R. Ballantyne, principal of the college in Benares, was proposed in June 1860 by friends based in England, who described him as the "chief of British Sanscrit scholars". (24)

Moniere Williams was an Oxford-educated Englishman who had spent 14 years teaching Sanskrit to those preparing to work in British India for the East India Company. (25) Müller was a German-born lecturer at Oxford specialising in comparative philology. (26)Williams laid great stress in his campaign on Boden's intention that the holder should assist in converting India through the dissemination of the Christian scriptures. (27) Müller's view was that his work was of great value to missionaries, and published testimonials accordingly, but was also a worthy end in itself. (28)

Müller was from the German duchy of Anhalt-Dessau and took up Sanskrit at university as an intellectual challenge after mastering Greek and Latin. (29) At this time, Sanskrit was a new subject of study in Europe, and its connections with the traditional classical languages attracted interest from those examining the history of languages. (30) He obtained his doctorate from Leipzig University in 1843, aged 19, and after a year studying in Berlin, he began work in Paris on the first printed edition of the Rig Veda. A brief visit to England for research in 1846 turned into a lifelong stay. The Prussian diplomat Baron von Bunsen and Wilson persuaded the directors of the East India Company to provide financial support for Oxford University Press to publish the Rig Veda. Settling in Oxford in 1848 Muller continued his Sanskrit research, becoming Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages in 1854 and a fellow of All Souls College in 1858, (31) "an unprecedented honour for a foreigner at that time", according to his biographer, Nirad C. Chaudhuri. (32)

Williams, in contrast, worked on later material and had little time for the "continental" school of Sanskrit scholarship that Müller exemplified. Williams regarded the study of Sanskrit as a means to an end, namely the conversion of India to Christianity. In Müller's opinion, his own work, while it would assist missionaries, was also valuable as an end in itself.

Williams was the son of an army officer and was born in India. He studied briefly at Balliol College, Oxford, before training at Haileybury for the civil service in India. The death of his brother in battle in India led him to return to Oxford to complete his degree. He also studied Sanskrit with Wilson before teaching it and other languages at Haileybury from 1844 until 1858, when it closed following the Indian rebellion of 1857. (33) He prepared an English–Sanskrit dictionary, at Wilson's prompting, which the East India Company published in 1851; his Sanskrit–English dictionary was supported by the Secretary of State for India. (34) According to Dutch anthropologist Peter van der Veer, Williams "had an Evangelical zeal" in line with the views that had inspired Boden to establish the chair. (35)

Both men battled for the votes of the electorate, the Convocation of the university, consisting of over 3,700 graduates, through manifestos and newspaper correspondence. Williams laid great stress in his campaign on the intention of the original founder of the chair, that the holder should assist in converting India through the dissemination of the Christian scriptures.

Müller announced his candidacy on 14 May 1860, six days after Wilson's death. (37) His submission to Convocation referred to his work in editing the Rig Veda, saying that without it missionaries could not fully learn about the teachings of Hinduism, which impeded their work. He, therefore, considered that he had "spent the principal part of my life in promoting the object of the Founder of the Chair of Sanskrit." (38) He promised to work exclusively on Sanskrit and said that he would provide testimonials from "the most eminent Sanskrit scholars in Europe and India" and from missionaries who had used his publications to help "overthrow the ancient systems of idolatry" in India. (39) He was able to provide a list of missionary societies that had requested copies of the Rig Veda from the East India Company, including the Church Missionary Society and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. (40)

Müller's view was that his work on the Rig Veda was of great value for missionary work, and published testimonials accordingly. He also wanted to teach broader subjects such as Indian history and literature to assist missionaries, scholars, and civil servants – a proposal that Williams criticised as not by the original benefactor's wishes. The rival campaigns took out newspaper advertisements and circulated manifestos, and different newspapers backed each man. while Müller was German, some of the newspaper pronouncements in favour of Williams were based on a claimed national interest of having an Englishman as a Boden professor to assist in converting India.

Williams declared his intention to stand for election on 15 May 1860, one day after Müller. (41) In his written submission to Convocation, he emphasised his suitability for appointment in light of Boden's missionary wishes. After giving details of his life and career, his experience in Sanskrit obtained at Haileybury, he stated that for the past 14 years "the one idea of my life has been to make myself thoroughly conversant with Sanskrit, and by every means in my power to facilitate the study of its literature." (42) He assured voters that, if elected, "my utmost energies shall be devoted to the one object which its Founder had in view;—namely 'The promotion of a more general and critical knowledge of the Sanskrit language, as a means of enabling Englishmen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion.'" (43) Unlike Müller, he regarded the study of Sanskrit "as chiefly a means to the missionary conversion of the Hindus rather than as an end in itself", as Dowling puts it. (44) In this way, Dowling says, he could attempt to deflect attention from his "modest abilities in classical Sanskrit" when compared to Müller's "internationally acknowledged achievements". (45) Moreover, the appeal to Boden's original intentions came during a period when Convocation tended to pay little attention to the expressed wishes of benefactors. (46)

In August 1860, Müller wrote to the members of Convocation about his plans to teach a broad range of topics in addition to Sanskrit, including comparative philology, Indian history, and literature. Simply teaching the language "would be but a mean return" for Boden's generosity, he wrote. (47) In this way, he would help to supply "efficient" missionaries, "useful" civil servants, and "distinguished" Boden scholars. (48)

Moniere Williams

In turn, Williams wrote that if Boden had left instructions that the man elected should be the one "most likely to secure a worldwide reputation for the Sanskrit Chair, I confess that I should have hesitated to prosecute my design." (49) However, this was not the case and it would be "unjustifiable" in terms of the statutes governing the chair if the professor were to lecture on wider topics. In his view, the Vedic literature was "of less importance" and the philosophical literature was "very mystical and abstruse", whereas "the classical or modern" period which includes the laws, two heroic poems, and the plays was the "most important". (49) Reminding his readers that he had edited two Sanskrit plays, he stated that the literature of the third period constituted the Sanskrit scriptures, not ("as has hitherto been believed") the Veda, "still less the Rig Veda". (50) He commented that Müller's edition of the Rig Veda was requiring "an expenditure of time, labour, money, and erudition far greater than was ever bestowed on any edition of the Holy Bible", adding that Boden did not intend to "aid in the missionary work by perpetuating and diffusing the obsolescent Vedic Scriptures." (51) He said his own approach to Sanskrit scholarship, with his dictionaries and grammar books, was "suited to English minds", unlike Müller's "continental" and "philosophical" approach, which dealt with texts no longer relevant to modern Hindus that missionaries would not benefit from studying. (52)

In a letter to The Times published on 29 October 1860, Müller took issue with Williams. To the claim that it would be unjustifiable to teach history, philosophy, and other subjects as a Boden professor, he quoted from one of Wilson's public lectures in which he had said that it had always been his intention to offer "a general view of the institutions and social condition, the literature, and religion of the Hindus." (53) He noted that he had published in all three areas into which Williams divided Sanskrit literature, and disputed Williams's views on the relative importance of Vedic literature concerning a review of one of his publications by Wilson. Williams, he said, "stands as yet alone" in asserting that the heroic poems and the plays, not the Vedas, were the real scriptures. (54) He refused to accept Williams's estimate of the labour involved in the edition of the Rig Veda, and said that to compare his little effort with that carried out on the Bible was "almost irreverent". (55) He rebutted the claim that Boden would not have wanted the Vedic scriptures to be supported. He said that the Bishop of Calcutta, George Cotton had written that it was of "the greatest importance" for missionaries to study Sanskrit and its scriptures "to be able to meet the Pundits on their own ground", and that the bishop's view was that nothing could be more valuable in this work than Müller's edition, and Wilson's translation, of the Rig Veda." (56)

After this letter, Williams complained about Müller conducting his campaign in the newspapers and misrepresenting what Williams was saying. (57) Müller asked three professors and the Provost of Queen's College to consider the accuracy of his letter, and they pronounced in his favour. (58) In Beckerlegge's view, all these replies and counter-replies did was "illustrate the increasingly heated tone of the exchanges" between the two men and their supporters. (59) It was "as if the protagonists were prospective members of Parliament". (60) Insults regarding the nationality of Max Müller and the proficiency of Monier Williams as a Sanskritist were being bandied back and forth by their supporters. (61) One of the Boden scholars at Oxford, Robinson Ellis, said Williams had not been able to prove that he could read a Sanskrit text. When challenged, he later amended this to a claim that Williams could only read a text when he could compare it to another one, describing this as "mechanical labour which is paid for at the public libraries at Paris and Berlin at the rate of half a crown a year." (62)

Each had a committee of helpers; Williams had two, one in London, the other in Oxford. (63) He spent over £1,000 on his campaign – as much as the Boden professor was paid in a year. (64) In June 1860, Müller complained in a letter to his mother about having to write to each one of the "4,000 electors, scattered all over England"; he said that sometimes he wished he had not thought of standing for election, adding "if I don't win, I shall be very cross!" (65)

The rival campaigns took out newspaper advertisements and circulated manifestos, and different newspapers backed each man. (66) A public debate raged about Britain's role in India particularly after the Indian Rebellion of 1857–58, whether to convert India or whether to remain sensitive to local culture and traditions. (67) Although generally regarded as superior to Williams in scholarship, (68) Müller had the double disadvantage of being German and having liberal Christian views. (69).

According to Beckerlegge, there was a view held by many of those involved in the keenly fought struggle between Williams and Müller that more depended on the result than simply one man's career – missionary success or failure in India, "and even the future stability of British rule in this region," in the light of events in India in 1857, might depend on the abilities of the Boden professor. (70) Victory would depend on each side's ability to persuade non-resident members of Convocation to return to Oxford to cast their votes. (71)  Müller was backed by scholars of international merit, whereas Williams was able to call upon Oxford-based academics and those who had served in India as administrators or missionaries. (72) Both claimed support from Wilson – "as if the principle of apostolic succession was involved in the appointment", says Chaudhuri. (73) The Times reported on 23 May that friends of Williams placed considerable weight upon a private letter to him from Wilson, "indicating Mr Williams as his probable successor." (74) In return, Wilson was revealed to have said "two months before his death" that "Mr Max Müller was the first Sanskrit scholar in Europe". (75) The source of this information was W. S. W. Vaux, of the British Museum, who described his conversation with Wilson in a letter to Müller in May 1860. In reply to Vaux's comment that he and others wanted Wilson's successor to be "the finest man we could procure", Vaux quoted Wilson as saying that "You will be quite right if your choice should fall on Max Müller." (76)

The Times published a list of leading supporters for each candidate on 27 June 1860, noting that many people were not declaring support for either "since they wish to see whether any person of real eminence announces himself from India".(77) Müller was backed by Francis Leighton, Henry Liddell and William Thomson (the heads of the colleges of All Souls, Christ Church, and Queen's), Edward Pusey, William Jacobson and Henry Acland (the Regius Professors of Hebrew, of Divinity, and of Medicine) and others. Williams had the declared support of the heads of University and Balliol colleges (Frederick Charles Plumptre and Robert Scott), and fellows from ten different colleges. (78)

As Beckerlegge has stated, "voting for the Boden Chair was increasingly taking on the appearance of being a test of patriotism." (79)

On 5 December 1860, two days before the election, friends of Müller published an advertisement in The Times to list his supporters, in response to a similar record circulated on behalf of Williams. By then, Müller's list included the heads of 11 colleges or halls of the university, 27 professors, over 40 college fellows and tutors, and many non-resident members of the university including Samuel Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford and Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India. (80) A list published on the following day added the name of Charles Longley, Archbishop of York, to Müller's supporters. (81) The public supporters for each candidate were about the same in number, but while Müller was backed by "all the noted Orientalists of Europe of the age", Williams's supporters "were not so distinguished", according to Chaudhuri. (82)

One evangelical publication, The Record, contrasted the two candidates: Müller's writings were "familiar to all persons interested in literature, while they have destroyed confidence in his religious opinions"; Williams was described as "a man of sincere piety, and one who is likely, by the blessing of God on his labours, to promote the ultimate object which the founder of the Professorship had in view."(83) The Homeward Mail, a London-based newspaper that concentrated on news related to India (84) asked its readers whether they wanted "a stranger and a foreigner" to win, or "one of your own body". (85) A writer in The Morning Post said that voters should "keep the great prizes of the English universities for English students". (86) The Morning Herald said that it was "a question of national interest" since it would affect the education of civil servants and missionaries and therefore "the progress of Christianity in India and the maintenance of British authority in that empire". (87) It anticipated that Britain would be ridiculed if it had to appoint a German to its leading academic Sanskrit position. (88)

An editorial in The Times on 29 October 1860 called Muller "nothing more nor less than the best Sanscrit scholar in the world." (89) It compared the situation to the 1832 election when there had also been a choice between the best scholar (Wilson) and a good scholar "who was held to have made the most Christian use of the gift" (William Hodge Mill). (90) Williams, it said, appeared as "the University man ..., the man sufficiently qualified for the post, and, above all, as the man in whose hands, it is whispered, the interests of Christianity will be perfectly safe." (91) His proposal not to teach history, philosophy, mythology or comparative philology "seems to strip the subject very bare" and would, it thought, leave the post as "an empty chair". (92) It stated that Müller "best answers to the terms of Colonel Boden's foundation." (93) His field of study – the oldest period of Sanskrit literature – "must be the key of the whole position", whereas Williams was only familiar with the later, "less authentic, and less sacred" writings. (95) The editorial ended by saying that Oxford "will not choose the less learned candidate; at all events, it will not accept from him that this is the true principle of a sound Christian election." (96)

Max Muller

Edward Pusey, the influential "high church" Anglican theologian associated with the Oxford Movement, wrote a letter of support to Müller, reproduced in The Times. In his view, Boden's intentions would be best advanced by electing Müller. Missionaries could not win converts without knowing the details of the religion of those with whom they were dealing, he wrote, and Müller's publications were "the greatest gifts which have yet been bestowed" on those in such work. (97) He added that Oxford would gain by electing him to a position where Müller could spend all his time on work "of such primary and lasting importance for the conversion of India."(98) Beckerlegge finds Pusey's support noteworthy, since Pusey would not have agreed with Müller's particular "broad" approach to Christianity, and was thus providing a judgment on the academic abilities of the candidate best placed to advance missionary work in India. (99) One anonymous writer of a letter to the press in support of Müller, shortly before the election, expressed it thus: "A man's personal character must stand very high, and his theological opinions can afford but little ground for animadversion on either hand, when he unites as his unhesitating supporters Dr Pusey and Dr Macbride" (100) – a reference to John Macbride, "a profoundly religious layman of the 'old' evangelical school". (101) However, Dowling describes Müller as "impercipient of the subtle twists of theological argument, the fine shadings and compunctions of Victorian religious feeling" – a weakness that was held against him. (102)

The election was held on 7 December 1860 in the Sheldonian Theatre. (103) Special trains to Oxford were provided for non-resident members of the Convocation to cast their votes. Evangelical clergymen turned out in force to vote. (104) Over about five and a half hours of voting, 833 members of the Congregation declared for Williams, and 610 for Müller. (105) In the end, Williams won by a majority of over 220 votes. He helped to establish the Indian Institute at Oxford, received a knighthood, and held the chair until he died in 1899. Müller, although deeply disappointed by his defeat, remained in Oxford for the rest of his career, but never taught Sanskrit there. The 1860 election was the last time that Convocation chose the Boden professor.

Historians have advanced various views as to why, even though Müller was generally regarded as the superior scholar, he lost to Williams. (106) Beckerlegge suggests several possible factors: unlike Williams, Müller was known as a writer and translator rather than a teacher of Sanskrit, he did not have links to the East India Company or the Indian Civil Service, and he had not been educated at Oxford. (107) In his obituary of Müller, Arthur Macdonell (Boden professor 1899–1926) said that the election "came to turn on the political and religious opinions of the candidates rather than on their merits as Sanskrit scholars", adding that "party feeling ran high and large numbers came up to vote." (108) Similarly, Dowling has written that "in the less cosmopolitan precincts outside Oxford ... the argument that Müller was 'not English' told heavily against him" since "the argument was unanswerable." (109) She adds that Tories opposed him for his liberal political views, traditionalist factions within Oxford rejected "Germanizing" reform, and "the Anglican clergy ... detected unbelief lurking in his umlaut". (110) The American historian Marjorie Wheeler-Barclay takes the view that the three motives for people voting against Müller cannot be disentangled. (111) Those who supported Indian missionary work, Dowling writes, saw it as the key to continued British rule, and there was no need to take a chance by electing Müller, who had "a reputation for unsound religious opinions" since Williams was a scholar "of distinction known for his conservatism and piety." (112)

Müller attributed his defeat to his German background and suspicions that his Christianity was insufficiently orthodox, factors that had been used to influence in particular those voters who were no longer resident members of the university. (113) He had lost, he wrote, because of "calumnious falsehood and vulgar electioneering tactics." (114) Williams wrote in his unpublished autobiography that he had been "favoured by circumstances" and that, unlike Müller, he had been regarded as politically and religiously conservative. (115)

Müller wrote to his mother, on 16 December:

"The last days have been full of disturbance. You will have seen by the papers that I did not get the Sanskrit Professorship. The opposite party made it a political and religious question, and nothing could be done against them. All the best people voted for me, the Professors almost unanimously, but the vulgus profanum made the majority. I was sorry, for I would gladly have devoted all my time to Sanskrit, and the income was higher; but we shall manage. " (116)

Williams served as Boden professor until he died in 1899, although he retired from teaching, while retaining the title, in 1887 because of his health. (117) The subject for his inaugural lecture was The Study of Sanskrit about Missionary Work. As the East India Company had switched to using English rather than Sanskrit or Persian for its work, "a natural source of students had already dried up not long after the Boden Chair was inaugurated [in 1832]". (118) Williams helped establish the Indian Institute at Oxford, proposing the idea in 1875 and helping to raise funds for the project on his visits to India, and persuaded the university to add a degree course in oriental studies. His publications included translations of plays and grammatical works. He was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the Indian Empire in 1887 when he changed his surname to become Sir Monier Monier-Williams. (119)

Robinson Ellis was required to attend Williams's lectures despite his low opinions of the new professor's abilities. Williams said Ellis's "whole demeanour was that of a person who would have welcomed an earthquake or any convulsion of nature which would have opened a way for him to sink out of my sight". (120) In the end, Williams won over most of those who had opposed his election, except Müller. (121)

For Müller, losing the election was "a decisive turning point in his scholarly and intellectual life", according to Chaudhuri. (122) It meant that Müller was never to teach Sanskrit at Oxford, although he remained there until his death in 1900; (123) nor did he ever visit India. (124) Greatly disappointed by not winning the chair, Müller "regularly avoided or snubbed Monier Williams and his family on the streets of Oxford", according to Williams. (125) He was appointed to a chair of comparative philology in 1868, the first Oxford professorship to be established by the university itself without money from royal or private donations. (126) He wrote a letter of resignation in 1875 when the university proposed to award an honorary doctorate to Williams, citing a reason that he wanted to spend more time studying Sanskrit. Friends attempted to talk him out of it, and the university appointed a deputy professor to discharge his duties. (127)

Despite his electoral defeat, Muller enjoyed a high reputation at Oxford and beyond: he "occupied a central role in the intellectual life of the nation", according to Beckerlegge. (128) In Beckerlegge's opinion, Müller's views about the nature of Christian missionary work showed the difficulty at that time for Christian academics "actively working to promote a more tolerant and even-handed study of other religious traditions". (129) Dowling considers that "[w]ithin his own lifetime, Müller was discredited as a linguistic scientist" and has "little relevance" to later models of the study of language. (130)

Of the other candidates, Cowell was elected as the first Sanskrit professor at the University of Cambridge in 1867, supported by Müller and others. (131) Griffith was the principal of his college from 1861 until 1878, succeeding Ballantyne; he carried out further work in India after his retirement and died there. (132) Ballantyne resigned as principal because of health problems and returned to England, where he served as librarian to the India Office, a position that Wilson had held in addition to the professorship until he died in 1864. (133)

Boden professors, till India attained freedom:

Horace Wilson (1832-1860)

Wilson trained as a surgeon and learnt Hindustani en route to India to work for the East India Company, where he studied Sanskrit and other languages. He published articles in the journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of which he was secretary for 21 years. Opposing compulsory Christian tuition for Indian students, he favoured traditional Indian education mixed with studies of the English language and Western learning, although he regarded Indian culture as inferior to that of the Western world. He arrived in Oxford in 1833 after his election in 1832 but moved to London in 1836 to be a librarian at East India House, the company's headquarters, travelling back to Oxford as necessary to carry out his duties. He held both positions until he died in 1860.

Monier Williams (1860-1899)

Williams was born in India, the son of an army officer. Educated in England, he trained for the East India Company's civil service at the company's college. Still, news of the death of his brother in battle in India prompted him to return to Oxford and study Sanskrit with Wilson, winning the Boden scholarship. After graduating in 1844, he was a professor of Sanskrit, Persian and Hindustani at the company's college until 1858, when it closed after the Indian rebellion. As a Boden professor, he wanted to create stronger links between India and England with the creation of a specialist institute at Oxford. His advocacy and fundraising at home and overseas led to the Indian Institute opening in 1884 (completed in 1896), and he gave about 3,000 manuscripts and books to its library. He retired from teaching in 1887; Arthur Macdonell was appointed as his deputy in 1888 and succeeded him. 

Arthur McDonnel (1899-1926)

Macdonell was born in India, where his father was a colonel in a local regiment, and lived there until he was six or seven. He spent several school years in Germany before studying Sanskrit and comparative philology at Göttingen University. He studied literae humaniores (classics) at Oxford, also winning scholarships in German, Chinese and Sanskrit. After lecturing in German and Sanskrit at Oxford and obtaining his doctorate from Leipzig, he was appointed as deputy to Monier-Williams in 1888, succeeding him in 1899. Macdonell developed the library and museum of the Indian Institute, raised funds in India for a scholarly edition of the Mahābhārata, and helped the Bodleian Library acquire many Sanskrit manuscripts. His main scholarly interest was Vedic Sanskrit, producing books on its mythology and grammar, and editions of some Vedic texts. 

Frederick Thomas (1927-1937)

Thomas read classics and Indian languages at Cambridge and then spent six years teaching before becoming assistant librarian, later the librarian, of the India Office. After 24 years as a librarian, arranging and studying the many books and manuscripts the India Office had acquired, he spent 10 years as a Boden professor. His main scholarly interests were in philology, but he also studied Buddhism, Jainism, philosophy, logic and myth. He also helped produce the standard translation of Harshacharita, a 7th-century Sanskrit biography. 

Edward Johnson (1937-1942)

After winning the Boden scholarship, Johnston served in the Indian Civil Service from 1909 to 1924, acquiring knowledge of the Indian language and culture which he improved on his return to England. He also learnt some Tibetan and Chinese to use sources in those languages. His writings drew upon his practical knowledge of Indian life. His main work was an edition and translation of Buddhacarita ("Acts of the Buddha") by the 2nd-century author Aśvaghoṣa, published between 1928 and 1936. As a Boden professor, he helped to catalogue the Bodleian Library's Sanskrit manuscripts and to improve the Indian Institute's museum. 

Thomas Burrow (1944-1976)

Burrow studied classics and oriental languages at Cambridge, spending one year of his doctorate, on Prakrits, the later languages close to Sanskrit, in London. After two further years of research in Cambridge, he was an assistant keeper in the Department of Oriental printed books and manuscripts at the British Museum for seven years, where he studied Dravidian languages, which thereafter was his main area of research and publication. As a Boden professor, he taught Sanskrit, Pali and Prakrit; according to his successor, Richard Gombrich, Burrow may never have set any of his students the task of writing an essay. On field trips to India, he helped to record previously unstudied Dravidian languages. Gombrich described him as "amiable but socially passive and taciturn", and as "a single-minded scholar of great learning". (134)

Christopher Minkowski was appointed in 2005 as the eighth Boden professor.

The End of the Project

After the Sanyasi Rebellion in India during 1770-1777, twenty years after the 1857 rebellion, the conversion project was shelved by the Britishers. It was evident that the project would lead to rebellion in India. So, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act 1877 implemented a process of reform imposed by Parliament that had begun in the middle of the 19th century and empowered a group of commissioners to lay down new statutes for the university and its colleges. The commissioners' powers included the ability to rewrite trusts and directions attached to gifts that were 50 years old or more. (135) 

The statutes governing the Boden chair were revised by the commissioners in 1882; there was no mention after that of Boden's original proselytising purpose. The professor was required to "deliver lectures and give instruction on the Sanskrit Language and Literature", to contribute towards the pursuit and advancement of knowledge, and to "aid generally the work of the University." He had to provide instruction to students for at least four days each week during at least twenty-one weeks each year, without further fee, and to deliver public lectures.  Instead of election by Convocation, the new statutes provided that the electors would be the Secretary of State for India, the Corpus Christi Professor of Comparative Philology, the Sanskrit Professor at the University of Cambridge, someone nominated by Balliol College and someone nominated by the university's governing body. Revisions by the commissioners to the statutes of Balliol College in 1882 provided that the Boden professor was to be a Fellow of the college from then onwards. (136)

Further changes to the university's internal legislation in the 20th and early 21st centuries abolished specific statutes for the duties of, and rules for appointment to, individual chairs such as the Boden professorship. The University Council is now empowered to make appropriate arrangements for appointments and conditions of service, and the college to which any professorship is allocated (Balliol in the case of the Boden chair) has two representatives on the board of electors. (137) In 2008, Richard Gombrich said that he had had to "fight a great battle" in 2004 to ensure that another Boden professor was appointed to succeed him on his retirement, and credited his victory to the university's realisation. His view was that Oxford retained the chair in Sanskrit because it was the last such position in the United Kingdom.

___________________

1. Chichester, H. M.; Carter, Philip (May 2005). "Boden, Joseph (d. 1811)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press.2. At this time, "India" described the area covered by present-day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh

3. Chichester, H. M.; Carter, Philip (May 2005). "Boden, Joseph (d. 1811)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

4. Ibid

5. Ibid

6. Ibid

Extract from Joseph Boden's will, 15 August 1811
"I do hereby give and bequeath all and singular my said residuary estate and effects, with the accumulations thereof, if any, and the stocks, funds, and securities whereon the same shall have been laid out and invested, unto the University of Oxford, to be by that body appropriated in and towards the erection and endowment of a Professorship in the Shanskreet [sic] language, at or in any or either of the Colleges in the said University, being of opinion that a more general and critical knowledge of that language will be a means of enabling my countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian Religion, by disseminating a knowledge of the Sacred Scriptures amongst them, more effectually than all other means whatsoever." ("Oxford". The Observer. 19 November 1827. p. 2.)

7. "Editorial". The Times. 29 October 1860. p. 6.

8. Chaudhuri, Nird, Scholar Extraordinary, Chatto and Windus (1974), p. 221

9. "Boden professor of Sanskrit - About". www.balliol.ox.ac.uk. 

10. Courtright, Paul B. (2004). "Wilson, Horace Hayman (1786–1860)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

11. Bendall, Cecil; Loloi, Parvin (2004). "Mill, William Hodge (1792–1853)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

12. Courtright, Paul B. (2004). "Wilson, Horace Hayman (1786–1860)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.

13. "University Intelligence". The Times. 17 March 1832. p. 4.

14. Goodwin, Gordon; Katz, J. B. (January 2008). "Haughton, Sir Graves Chamney (1788–1849)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

15. Beckerlegge, Gwilym (1997). "Professor Friedrich Max Müller and the Missionary Cause". In Wolfe, John (ed.). Religion in Victorian Britain. Vol. V – Culture and Empire. Manchester University Press. p. 186

16. Ibid, p 187

17. Ibid, 201

18. Ibid, 202

19. Ibid, 188

20. Dowling, Linda (March 1982). "Victorian Oxford and the Science of Language". Publications of the Modern Language Association of America. Modern Language Association. p. 165

21. "University Intelligence". The Times. 28 May 1860. p. 6.

22. "University Intelligence". The Times. 31 October 1860. p. 4.

23. "University Intelligence". The Times. 17 August 1860. p. 7.

24. Boden Sanscrit Professorship". The Observer. 3 June 1860. p. 3.

25. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54.

26. Beckerlegge, pp. 334–335
27. ibid, pp. 333–334
28. ibid, pp. 334–335

29. Fynes, R. C. C. (May 2007). "Müller, Friedrich Max (1823–1900)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press.

30.Beckerlegge, p. 180

31. Fynes, R. C. C. (May 2007). "Müller, Friedrich Max (1823–1900)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

32. Chaudhuri, p. 220

33. Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (October 2007). "Williams, Sir Monier Monier– (1819–1899)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

34. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54

35. Van der Veer, Peter (2001). Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton University Press p. 109

36. "University Intelligence". The Times. 16 May 1860. p.9

37. ibid

38. Beckerlegge, pp. 334–335

39. ibid

40. ibid, 203

41. "University Intelligence". The Times. 16 May 1860. p. 9

42. Beckerlegge, pp. 333–334

43. ibid

44. Dowling, p. 165

45. ibid

46. Beckerlegge, p. 197

47. ibid, p. 198

48. ibid, p 199

48. Chaudhuri, p. 223

49. "University Intelligence". The Times. 22 October 1860. p. 7

50. ibid

51. ibid

52. Beckerlegge, p. 199

53-56: Müller, Max (29 October 1860). "Sanskrit Professorship". The Times. p. 7

57: ibid

58. ibid

59. Beckerlegge, p. 201

60. Evison, Evison, Gillian (December 2004). "The Orientalist, his Institute and the Empire: the rise and subsequent decline of Oxford University's Indian Institute" p. 2

61. Thomas, Thomas, Terence (2000). "Political motivations in the development of the academic studies of religions in Britain". In Geertz, Armin (ed.). Perspectives on Method and Theory in the Study of Religion: Adjunct Proceedings of the XVIIth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Mexico City, 1995. Brill Publishers. p. 85

62. Evison, p. 3.

63. Chaudhuri, p. 222

64.  Evison, p. 2

65. Müller, p. 238

66. Van der Veer, p. 108

67. Chaudhuri, p. 220

68. "University Intelligence". The Times. 28 May 1860. p. 6

69.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 31 October 1860. p. 4.

70. Beckerlegge, p. 178.

71. ibid193

72. ibid

73. Chaudhuri, p. 226

74. "University Intelligence". The Times. 23 May 1860. p. 9

75. ibid

76. Müller, p. 236

77.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 27 June 1860. p. 12

78. ibid

79. Beckerlegge, p. 180

80.  "Boden Professorship of Sanskrit at Oxford". The Times. 5 December 1860. p. 6

81.  "Boden Sanskrit Professorship". The Times. 6 December 1860. p. 8

82. Chaudhuri, p. 221

83. Quoted in Beckerlegge, p. 196

84. Kaul, Chandrika (2003). Reporting the Raj: The British Press and India C. 1880–1922. Manchester University Press. pp. 87–88

85-88. Quoted in Beckerlegge, p. 196

89-96.Editorial". The Times. 29 October 1860. p. 6

97.  Pusey, Edward (11 June 1860). "The Boden Professorship of Sanskrit". The Times. p. 9

98. ibid

99. Beckerlegge, p. 203

100. Müller, pp. 241–242

101. Simpson, R. S. (2004). "Macbride, John David (1778–1868)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press

102. Dowling, p. 164

103.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 8 December 1860. p. 9

104. Evison, p. 3

105.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 8 December 1860. p. 9

106. Tull, Herman W. (June 1991). "F. Max Müller and A. B. Keith: 'Twaddle', the 'Stupid' Myth and the Disease of Indology". Numen. Brill Publishers. 38 (3): 31–32

107. Beckerlegge, p. 195

108. Macdonell, Arthur Anthony (1901). "Obituary: Max Müller". Man. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 1: 18–23.

109. Dowling, p. 164.

110. ibid

111. Beckerlegge, pp. 202–203

112. ibid

113. ibid, 195

114. Dowling, p. 164

115. Beckerlegge, p. 195

116. Thomas, p. 86

117. Evison, p. 2

118. Thomas, p. 86

119.  Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (October 2007). "Williams, Sir Monier Monier– (1819–1899)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.

120.  Evison, p. 3

121. ibid

122. Chaudhuri, p. 222

123. Kochhar, Rajesh (March–April 2008). "Seductive Orientalism: English Education and Modern Science in Colonial India". Social Scientist. 36 (3/4): 54

124. Beckerlegge, p. 188

125.  ibid, p. 183

126. Tull, Herman W. (June 1991). "F. Max Müller and A. B. Keith: 'Twaddle', the 'Stupid' Myth and the Disease of Indology". Numen. Brill Publishers. 38 (3): 31–32

127. Chaudhuri, pp. 232–234

128. Beckerlegge, p. 179

129. ibid

130. Dowling, p. 160

131. Beckerlegge, p. 173

132.  Macdonell, A. A.; Katz, J. B. (2004). "Griffith, Ralph Thomas Hotchkin (1826–1906)". In Katz, J. B (ed.). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press

133. Simpson, R. S. (2004). "Ballantyne, James Robert (1813–1864)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University

134. Gombrich, Richard F. (2004). "Burrow, Thomas (1909–1986)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press

135.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 22 November 1860. p. 10

136.  "University Intelligence". The Times. 15 May 1860. p. 9

137. Beckerlegge, pp.203, 334–335

© Ramachandran