Showing posts with label Moniere Williams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moniere Williams. Show all posts

Wednesday 22 February 2023

MULLER Vs WILLIAMS: WHO IS THE BETTER CHRISTIAN?

He Guided the Missionaries

For Christian missionaries, India is still an unfinished project, and it is not because of a lack of pressure, persecution and intimidation. Every possible means has been tried to convert the ‘heathens’ into the ‘true’ religion of Christ, from the inquisition at Goa to Bishop Robert Caldwell’s sophisticated Dravidian race theory, meant to strike at the very foundation of Hinduism. One of the strong preachers for the conversion of Hindus through the study of Sanskrit, was the so-called scholar, Moniere Williams.

Williams, born in Mumbai, is known for his important work, the English- Sanskrit Dictionary (1851) published by the East India Company. Later, around his death in 1899, his Sanskrit-English Dictionary was also published. However, earlier two German scholars, Roth and Bathing, had compiled Sanskrit and Germanic words into five volumes. It is called the 'St. Petersburg Dictionary', printed by the funding of the rulers of Russia. He also translated two texts of Kalidas into English: the Vikramorvaseeyam in 1849 and the Abinjana Shakuntalam in 1853. Williams also wrote three books on Hindi grammar and published a study, Brahmanism and Hinduism: Religious Thought and Life in India in 1891.

Sir Moniere-Moniere Williams, who won the hotly contested Boden professorship in 1860 against Max Muller, delivered his inaugural lecture before the University of Oxford on 16 April 1861. The subject of his lecture was The Study of Sanskrit about Christian Missionary Work in India. (1) The Boden professorship had been constituted at Oxford for helping in converting all Hindus to Christianity in India, through the study of Sanskrit. His speech was part of a Christian political agenda, rather than a scholarly one. He preached the ways in which the English missionaries should resort to proselytization in India.

Monier Williams

He began his speech by saying, "India is of all the possessions of Great Britain the most interesting and presents the most inviting prospect to the missionary". "The missionary," he continued, has in India, no common country or people to deal with, no ordinary religion. Williams said: "He (the missionary) is not there brought in contact with savage tribes who melt away before the superior force and intelligence of Europeans. He is placed amid a great and ancient people, who, many of them tracing back their origin to the same stock as ourselves, attained a high degree of civilization when our forefathers were barbarians and had a polished language and literature when English was unknown".

Williams found that India is almost a continent like Europe, and from the earliest times has attracted various and successive immigrants and invaders, Asiatic and European. He termed the aboriginal tribes, to be of Scythian origin, and who, migrating from the steppes of Tartary, entered India by successive incursions. Such of these primitive races as did not coalesce with the Hindús are still to be traced in the hills and mountain fastnesses. They are called in ancient Sanskrit works, Mlechchhas, Dasyus, Nishádas, etc.; and are now identified with the Gonds of central India, the Bheels inhabiting the hills to the west of the Gonds, the Khonds (or Kus) occupying the eastern districts of Gondwána and the ranges south of Orissa, the Santháls and Koles in the hills to the west of Bengal, the Khásias and Garrows on the eastern border, and various other tribes in the south. According to Williams, they have little in common with each other and speak dialects mostly unintelligible to the more civilized races of India.

The great Hindú race, Williams found, are original members of the primaeval family, who called themselves Áryas or noblemen and spoke a language, the common source of Latin, Greek, and Sanskṛit. Starting at different periods from their home in central Asia, they separated into distinct nationalities and peopled Europe, Persia, and India. The Indo -Áryas, after detaching themselves from the Persian branch of this family, settled in the Panjáb and near the sacred "Saraswatí, the Holy Land" of the Hindús. Though Williams referred to Saraswati as the holy land, in the Vedas, it is a river, between the Yamuna in the east and the Sutlej in the west, and the Mahabharata mentions it as dried up in the desert.

Williams records: "Thence by successive invasions they overran the plains of the Ganges, and spread themselves gradually over the whole peninsula, coalescing in many places with the primitive inhabitants, and driving all who declined to amalgamate with them to the south or towards the hills".

Williams Continues: "It was thus that the fusion of the Áryas with the Scythian tribes gave rise to the Hindú race, which constitutes the mass of India’s population. It was thus, too, that the blending of the Áryan Sanskṛit with the various Scythian dialects gave rise to the Hindú dialects now current in India.

"Next to the Hindús, but with a long interval, came the Parsís. This small tribe of Persians were expelled from their native land by the conquering of Muhammadans under Khalíf Omar.

"Then came the Muhammadans (Arabs, Afgháns, Moguls, and Persians), who entered India at different times. The great majority of them are supposed to be the descendants of Hindús converted to Islám. Politically they became supreme but were never able to supplant the Hindús, as these had done the aboriginal inhabitants. Their compulsory proselytism led to the retention of Hindú habits and customs by the Musalmán converts. It was the policy of the Muhammadan conquerors to bend, on many points, to the prejudices of their Indian subjects. Hence the Moslems of India became partially Hindúised".

In the entire speech, Williams could be seen using the term "Aryan" in a misleading and dishonest manner. In the Sanskrit-Indian Dictionary that he compiled, he gives a fake authority of the word Aryan, to Rig Veda. The word "Aryan" doesn't exist in Rig Veda. "Aryan" is not a Sanskrit word at all but is an Anglicised/Germanised manipulation of the Sanskrit adjective ‘Arya’ which generally means a reliable, person who experiences truth and witnesses the same. Evangelists like Monier Williams and later English dictionaries have manipulated the Sanskrit word "Arya" into a foreign proper noun, "Aryan" – the name of a race, which is not its original meaning. Then, the Eurocentric mindset manipulate the name Persia into Iran in 1935, using the fabricated European term ‘Aryan’, making people believe that ‘Iran’ comes from the root word ‘Aryan’. This manipulation came in the wake of German racial fever of being ‘Aryan’ and ‘Iran’ being the home of the ‘Aryans.’ Thus, the theory of the Aryan conquest of India got invented. Hence, the authenticity of the dictionary of Williams itself is questionable because the eurocentric paradigm is incapable to understand the Vedic paradigm.

Also, in the long introduction of the Dictionary, Williams stresses that Sanskrit "is not only the elder sister of Greek but the best guide to the structure of Greek, as well as every other member of the Aryan or Indo-European family…a keynote of the science of comparative philology." Calling Sanskrit the 'sister," not the "mother", reveals the diabolical design of Williams-he wants to sustain the fake narratives of Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European families of language.

Despite all these, Williams agrees in his speech, the Hindú or Sanskṛit-speaking element lost its ascendancy in India, notwithstanding the accession and admixture of European ingredients. The Portuguese, the Dutch, the Danes, and the French have one after the other had a footing on India's shores. Last of all the English overran India, and its political supremacy was greater than that which once belonged to the Musalmáns. Yet the mass of the population is still essentially Hindú, and the moral influence of the Sanskṛitic race is still paramount. So, why India had to face serfdom? 

Disunity and Casteism

Williams focuses on the disunity and casteism among the Hindus. He records: "Were they a nation at unity among themselves, no foreign power could withstand their united will. But they are not one people. The Hindús of different provinces differ as much as English, French, and Italians. There is the spirited Hindústání, the martial Sikh, the ambitious Maráthí, the proud Rájput, the hardy Gorkha, the calculating Bengálí, the busy Telugu, the active Tamil, and the poor submissive Pariah of Madras.

"Contact with the aboriginal races and with Muhammadans and Europeans operated differently in different parts of India. Even in districts where the Hindús are called by one name and speak one dialect, they are broken up into separate communities, divided from each other by barriers more difficult to pass than those which mark the social distinctions of Europe. This separation constitutes, in point of fact, the very essence of their religion. The Hindús, are a people with strong religious feelings, whether by religion meant passive reliance on a Superior Being or dependence on ceremonial observances; and there are two noteworthy peculiarities in their religion—one is its intimate connexion with social or caste distinctions, and the other its comprehensiveness and spirit of almost universal toleration, admitting every variety of opinion between an unthinking surrender of reason and its complete independence."

Williams then tries to delineate the causes of disunion among the Hindús, and the importance of the study of Sanskṛit as the connecting link between all varieties of opinion.

The growth of the Indian caste system, according to him, is the most remarkable feature in Indian history. Caste as a social institution, conventional rules which define the grades of society, exists in all countries. In England, caste exerts no slight authority, marking society into distinct circles. But in Britain, caste is not a religious institution. In Britain, though religion permits differences of rank, such differences are to be laid aside in religious worship since all men are equal. But, the caste of the Hindús is different. Williams concurs that Hindú believes that the Deity regards men as unequal, proving that Williams does not know the basics of Hinduism. He further says that the Hindu God created distinct kinds of men, as he created varieties of birds or beasts: that Bráhmans and Śúdras are as naturally distinct as eagles and crows, or as lions and dogs; and that to force any Hindú to break the rules of caste is to force him to sin against God, and against nature. Williams forgets that the philosophy of Hinduism is Advaita, and it considers all manifestations, including a piece of dust and stardom as non-different. The Britishers should be reminded that the ultimate aim of Hindu philosophy, is the attainment of a state of experience which is free from birth, life and death. All gods in Hinduism undergo the experience of birth, life and death. So, the ultimate experience of truth in Hinduism is entirely different from the experience of god in Eurocentrism. And the several gods in Hinduism denote pluralism, which is a democracy, whereas the monotheism of Europe has only led to autocracy.

Williams alleges the endless rules of caste in India hinge upon three principal points,—1. food and its preparation, 2. intermarriage, and 3. professional pursuits; but among religious people who make these points the very essence of their religion, an offence against any one of them becomes the most enormous of crimes. In England, he says, the nobleman who eats with the peasant, marries into a family one degree beneath himself, or engages in occupations inconsistent with his rank, is not necessarily shunned, if his moral character remains unimpeached; but in India, if a Brahman does these things, his own peers have no choice but to cast him out, and ignore his very existence. As God created him a Bráhman, so when by an offence against nature he ceases to be a Bráhman, he cannot be re-bráhmanised. As far as his own social circle is concerned, he becomes like one dead or worse than dead: for when he really dies, his nearest relations refuse to touch his body or grant him a decent funeral. 

Williams records: "It is a remarkable fact, that the jails in India are filled with hardened villains, whose crimes sink them in our eyes to the lowest depths of infamy, but who, priding themselves on the punctilious observance of caste, have not lost one iota of their own self-respect and would resent with frantic indignation any attempt to force them to eat food prepared by the most virtuous person if inferior in caste to themselves". Williams does this with no mention of the existing racism in his country.

But Williams could not ignore the fact that there was no casteism in India, in the ancient period. He records:

"Notwithstanding the awful severity of these rules, it cannot be proved that there is any religious sanction for them in the Veda or so-called canon of Hindú revelation. In Manu, which is (smṛiti) ‘tradition’ and not (śruti) ‘revelation,’ it appears first as a complete system, but even in Manu, there is much less strictness regarding marriage and the rules about eating than in the later law-books. One hymn in the Ṛig-Veda (usually called the Purusha-súkta or 90th hymn of the Xth book, and evidently more modern than any of the others) alludes to a four-fold origin of the Hindú race (viz. Bráhmana, Rájanya, Vaiśya, and Śúdra), all of whom, it is said, were originally portions of Purusha, the great universal spirit, the source of the universe. But this assigns no superiority to any one class more than would naturally arise from difference of occupation. In all probability, when the earliest hymns of the Veda were composed, that is about 1200 or 1300 years B. C., and when the Sanskṛitic race was settling down in the plains of the Ganges, social distinctions had not ‘crystallized’ into caste, and there was no hereditary order of priests."

Manusmriti and Authenticity

Then Williams blames Manu as the originator of castes, which has no historicity or factual proof:

"As time went on, an elaborate sacrificial system required that a particular class should devote their whole attention to ministration in sacred things, Hence arose a distinct caste, which claimed a complete monopoly of religion, and arrogated absolute control over the consciences of the laity. Whether Manu is a real or ideal personage, he serves as the impersonator of Indian priest-craft; He not only elevated the Brahmans to the highest rank in the social scale and fenced about their position by the most awful religious sanctions, but foresees the danger of combined opposition on the part of the laity, he took care to deprive the latter of all unity of action by separating them into classes marked off from each other by impassable lines.

"The Bráhmans, he declared, were by indefeasible right the chief of all creatures. They inherited pre-eminence as their birthright, and were born the lords of the world (II. 93). Their duties were to teach and explain the Veda, to repeat it, and conduct sacrifices. They were not to seek political power, but they alone were to be the king’s ministers and advisers. Next to them came the Kshatriya s or military caste, whose principal duty was to defend the people; and after them the Vaiśyas, whose duties were agriculture, trade, and keeping cattle. These two classes might sacrifice and repeat the Veda, but not teach it. The king was to be chosen from the military caste but was to submit himself to the guidance of Bráhmans: and, though dying of want, was on no account to take taxes from them (VII. 36.133). All three classes were called ‘twice-born’ (dwija), because at different ages (either at five or eight years old in the case of Bráhmans) they underwent a ceremony called upanayana, which was supposed to confer spiritual birth. A thin cord (the yajnopavíta), composed of several threads, was put on over their heads, and worn under the right shoulder and over the left, as it is even now by Brahmans.

"Youths of the first three classes, thus initiated, were permitted to learn the sacred verse of the Vedas, called Gáyatrí, repeated by every Bráhman to this day, at his morning and evening devotions. The fourth and last caste was that of the Śúdras. They were not slaves, but their duty was to serve the three higher castes, and they were not allowed to offer sacrifices or repeat the Vedas. This caste was probably formed from the more respectable of the aboriginal inhabitants, who joined themselves to the conquering Hindús and preferred serving them to leaving their homes. Though placed immeasurably below the others, they were reckoned a pure caste, and are so considered to this day in southern India (Manu X. 4). According to Manu’s theory the low castes were the mixed classes, which resulted from illicit marriages between the others (described in the Xth book), such as the leather-sellers (dhigvaṇas), fisher-men (nishádas), car-drivers (sútas), attend-ants on women (vaidehas), carpenters (áyogavas) etc. But, in all probability, these low classes represent the more degraded aboriginal races, made slaves by those more powerful and refined Scythian tribes who afterwards formed the pure Śúdra caste.

"Hindú society, as thus depicted by Manu, no doubt represents what the Bráhmans aimed at more than what they actually affected. Still, there was a general conspiracy on the part of the Brahmans to monopolize temporal and spiritual power without personal risk or labour. Having the Veda to learn by heart, and a complicated ritual to master, they had too much on their hands to undertake the actual government; and satisfied with a dignified and lucrative repose, did not relish the risk of fighting. These duties, therefore, they delegated to the Kshatriyas but took care to check the inconvenient growth of kingly power by entangling it in a thick network of sacerdotal influence. The king was to do nothing without his advisers, the Bráhmans. If he taxed them or provoked them in any way, could they not immediately, “by sacrifices and imprecations, destroy him, with his troops, elephants, horses, and chariots?” (IX. 313.)

But, the very understanding of Williams about Manusmriti seems to be misplaced. Srilanka-born American Indologist Patrick Olivelle has rightly pointed out that the aim of the text is to “present a blueprint for a properly ordered society under the sovereignty of the king and the guidance of Brahmins". (2)

It was meant to be read by the priestly caste and Olivelle argues that it would likely have been part of the curriculum for young Brahmin scholars at colleges, and would have been referenced by the scholarly debates and conversations on the Dharmasastras at that time. It means that the text had only limited application. The philosophy of the Hindus remained Advaita.

The fact is, Manusmriti, which had no significance in Hindu life, came in handy for the proselytizing British scholars like Williams. It was the first Sanskrit text to be deliberately translated into a European language, by the British philologist Sir William Jones in 1794. Subsequently, it was translated into French, German, Portuguese and Russian, before being included in Max Muller’s edited volume, Sacred Books of the East in 1886. For colonial officials in British India, the translation of the book served a practical purpose. In 1772, Governor-General Warren Hastings decided to implement laws of Hindus and Muslims that they believed to be “continued, unchanged from remotest antiquity”. For Hindus, the dharmasastras were to play a crucial role, as they were seen by the British as ‘laws,’ whether or not it was even used that way in India. It is also possible that the British mistook Manusmrithi, a later legal text, as a philosophical text. Olivelle adds that numismatic evidence, and the mention of gold coins as a fine, suggest that the text may date to the 2nd or 3rd-century CE. (3) Olivelle, credited with a 2005 translation of Manusmriti published by the Oxford University Press, states the concerns in postmodern scholarship about the presumed authenticity and reliability of Manusmriti manuscripts. (4) He writes:

"All the editions of the Manusmriti, except for Jolly's, reproduce the text as found in the [Calcutta] manuscript containing the commentary of Kulluka. I have called this the "vulgate version". It was Kulluka's version that has been translated repeatedly: by William Jones (1794), Arthur Burnell (1884), George Buhler (1886) and Wendy Doniger (1991). The belief in the authenticity of Kulluka's text was openly articulated by Burnell: "There is then no doubt that the textus receptus, viz., that of Kulluka Bhatta, as adopted in India and by European scholars, is very near on the whole to the original text." (5) This is far from the truth. Indeed, one of the great surprises of my editorial work has been to discover how few of the over fifty manuscripts that I collated actually follow the vulgate in key readings.


Speech of Williams

Brahmins never ruled India; they were always the advisers of the kings. During the Veda and Mahabharata periods, they just thrived on alms in the jungles. Moniere Williams in his speech admits that there are weak points in the system of Manusmrithi, of which the Kshatriyas in process of time became strong and the Brahmins weak. He comments: "All Bráhmans being theoretically born equal, any scheme of general subordination among themselves became impossible. They were bound together by the most stringent rules, and their minutest actions were regulated with the microscopic strictness of a convent; but they were without a central authority, without a council, and without any general system of graduated ecclesiastical government. Discipline, therefore, was relaxed, the Bráhmans became careless, and the Kshatriyas more vigilant."

He continues: "It is clear from various legends, that long and severe struggles took place between the sacerdotal and military classes; Paraśu-ráma, the mythical champion of the Bráhmans is said to have cleared the earth thrice seven times of the whole Kshatriya race, and the names of various kings are recorded who perished from their resistance to the encroachments of the priesthood. On the other hand, the power of the Kshatriyas prevailed. The celebrated Viśwámitra, a Kshatriya, is fabled to have raised himself to the rank of a Bráhman, and various legends are narrated which indicate successful opposition on the part of other kings."

Finally Buddha, the great reforming Kshatriya, himself the son of a king, styling himself ‘the Awakened or Enlightened one,’ disseminated a creed which denied the authority of the Veda, prohibited the killing of animals for sacrifice, and repudiated altogether the supremacy of the Brahmans. A system which proclaimed all men equal preached universal toleration, and opposed the tyranny of the priests, had no difficulty in attracting proselytes. Buddhism gradually gained ground in India; and though for a long period ignored by the Brahmans, acquired the end of political supremacy. The best proof of its success was that the three pure castes which re-presented the Hindú laity became confused under its influence, and even Śúdras and Vaiśyas were made kings, upholding the pluralism ingrained in Advaita. There was even a Buddhist Emperor, Ashoka, and materialistic philosophy, Samkhya had ruled over India for several centuries.

But, according to Williams, the Bráhmans, however, were not to be ejected from their position so easily. Under Śankarachárya, in the eighth century, they recovered their ascendancy, but they lost much of their sacerdotal character and became parcelled out into a multitude of sub-divisions or sub-castes, some tribal in their origin, some local; while in place of the pure Kshatriya, Vaiśya, and Śúdra, arose a countless number of mixed classes, separated by difference of occupation, and fenced off from each other by barriers more insurmountable than those which Manu had created. These modern castes, in their tenacity of social and professional privileges, are not unlike the guilds of Europe. "Their jealousy of encroachments is even more marked", Williams asserts. "Those belonging to a higher stratum of society are ever vigilant to refrain from acts which would be deemed beneath their position and to hinder the class below them from any effort to rise to their level. Thus each caste practises an exclusive haughtiness, responded to on the part of the inferior class by outward servility and inward hatred." The solace for Williams is, among Hindus, "mutual confidence or sympathy is, of course, impracticable; nationality and patriotism are all but impossible". 

This solace had already been destroyed by the 1857 rebellion and the following Sanyaai rebellion.

The Two Revelations

Williams further speaks of the vagueness and uncertainty of Hindú religious belief as another source of disunion. The Hindú religion is truly many-sided. Though nominally founded on the Veda, the very vagueness of this word, which means ‘knowledge,’ well expresses the character of the religion. The term Veda is usually applied to several books which are supposed to constitute the collective canon of Hindú revelation; but the true sacred knowledge contained in these books was only to be transmitted through a series of priests who were, therefore, named Brahmans.

Williams records: "Here, then, we may note the distinction between the Christian and Hindú idea of revelation. We, Christians, believe that a succession of sacred books, and not a succession of fallible men, constitute the repository of our faith and that God communicated knowledge to inspired writers, permitting them at the same time to preserve the peculiarities of style, incident to their respective characters as men. Our canon of scripture is limited to one compact volume, furnishing a complete directory open to every Christian, so that nothing in faith or practice is required of him which is not contained therein or cannot be proved thereby. Now a Hindú of the old orthodox school repudiates this idea of revelation.

"His Veda, when written down, loses much of its sacred character. Revelation with him is an eternal sound, only to be received by Bráhmans and transmitted orally by them. It is God, himself identified with ‘knowledge,’ making that knowledge heard through the Bráhmans. As this knowledge after a series of revelations increased beyond the capacity of human memory, it came, at last, to be preserved in writing, but this was done to aid the Bráhmans in recollecting not so much the sense as the true sound. They were still to be ‘the only mouth’ through which the sacred Śruti was heard, and they alone could repeat it with the intonation and accent necessary to secure its efficacy. Hence the uncertainty of that so-called ‘divine knowledge,’ which, claiming an eternal existence, was really the work of numerous men during several centuries, each pretending to communicate revealed truth, and each composing hymns or laying down rules in endless succession without method or harmony of design. Most of these hymns and rules have been preserved in the collections called Ṛig, Yajur, Sáma, and Atharva-Veda; but these constitute a mere fraction of the Veda. The Bráhmaṇas, vast rambling treatises, and the philosophical supplements called Upanishads claim to be equally integral parts of Hindú revelation and to contain all the most important precepts relative to the practices and opinions of the Bráhmans".

At his absurd best, Williams terms the Upanishads as parts of Hindú revelation which contain the most important precepts relative to the practices and opinions of the Bráhmans!

At the same time, cancelling his arguments himself, Williams sees Hinduism as comprehensive: "A Bráhman, therefore, may enunciate almost any doctrine, and declare it to be part of the revelation of which he is the depository. Hence the comprehensiveness of Hindúism. Starting from the Veda, it appears to embrace something from all religions and present phases suited to all minds. It has spiritual and material aspects, esoteric and exoteric, subjective and objective, its pure and its impure. It is at once rigidly monotheistic, grossly polytheistic, and coldly atheistic. It has a side for the practical, another for the devotional, and another for the speculative. Those who rest in ceremonial observances find it all-satisfying; those who deny the efficacy of works and make faith their all in all, need not wander from its pale—those who delight in philosophizing on religious subjects may here indulge their taste".

Being at the heights of ignorance and never caring to use the word Advaita, Williams asserts that "the Hindú religion, as it presents itself in operation, is best expressed by the word caste". He says the actual worship of the Hindús at present is as multiform, variable, and elastic as caste itself. He says: "The gods of the Veda are now out of fashion. Fire is still revered, but Indra, the god of the atmosphere, has been altogether superseded by Kṛishṇa. This latter deity is an incarnation of Vishṇu and is the most popular member of the Hindú Pantheon, and he is celebrated in the Puráṇa called Bhágavata." If that is the case, the Britishers should bear in mind that Hinduism was an ever-changing, transforming and adaptable religion.

He further speaks the nonsense that the "Bráhmans are generally worshipers of Śiva", and others, especially in Oude and Hindústán proper, prefer to adore another celebrated incarnation of Vishṇu, called Ráma-Chandra, whose history and exploits are related in the great epic poem the Rámáyaṇa. another gem of absurdity: "Vast numbers of the Hindús, who pretend to be followers of Kṛishṇa, Ráma, or Śiva, are secretly worshipers of the Śakti or female power, personified as the consort of Śiva, and variously called Ambá, Jagad-ambá, Durgá, Kálí, Párvatí, etc. As these commit excesses deemed repugnant to the spirit of the Hindú religion, they are generally ashamed of their own creed, which is called the Váma-márga, or left-hand system of worship". 

Williams is unaware that no Hindu in this world of ashamed of worshipping the Devi, and Hindus adore the Devi Bhagavatham.

Williams says that even the worshipers of Kṛishṇa, Rama, Śiva, and Jagadambá, are not unity among themselves. The followers of each deity are divided into several sects. He records: "The Sikhs of the Panjáb, are disciples of Nának Sháh, who attempted to reconcile Hindúism with the faith of the Musalmáns, and promulgated the Grantha to supersede the Veda". Williams is wrong- Sikhism was founded as an alternative to Hinduism or Islam, but not to reconcile both.

Williams and his Wife Julia Grantham

He records that since Hindúism allows any amount of free-thinking on metaphysical subjects, the number of educated Hindús has really no other creed than that which they derive from one of the systems of philosophy. These are six in number: viz. Nyáya, Vaiśeshika, Sankhyá, Yoga, Vedánta (or Uttara-mímánsá), and Mímánsá (or Purva-mímánsá). All of them agree in deferring to the Veda as their ultimate authority, but the only school which has really impressed itself on the popular mind is the Vedánta. All Hindús, according to Williams, "whatever their nominal form of worship, are more or fewer philosophers; and Vedántism holding the external world as an illusion, and the supreme spirit as the only existing thing, is the natural current which drifts the thoughts of thinking Hindús towards a dreamy, inactive fatalism".

The problem with Williams and the Eurocentric is that they know only the physical world and hence they were after conquests and the resultant looting. India had, through its great sages imparted centuries ago, an important lesson to emperor Alexander. The inner life is more important than the worldly.

Veda is the rallying point for Williams: according to him, Hindúism begins with the Veda and ends with the Vedánta. He says: "This system of philosophy is in fact the full expression of the one leading idea of the Hindú religion—that idea which is supposed to underlie the primitive elemental worship of the Ṛig-Veda, to be gradually developed in the Bráhmaṇas, to be more clearly revealed in the Upanishads, to be completely manifested in the Vedánta, and to be consistent with all the variety of religious worship prevalent in the present day. This leading idea is the existence of a supreme universal spirit, the only really existing and abiding principle (vastu), which in fact constitutes the universe; and into which the soul, regarded as an emanation from it, but really identified with it, must be ultimately absorbed; such absorption being the highest object of man and only to be effected by a course of discipline, during which the soul is gradually released from the bondage of existence and arrives at the conviction that it is indeed God."

Here Williams traces the origins of the Vedic philosophy to the time "when the Indo-Áryan races first arrived in upper India", and he affirms that then "they had not lost the active habits natural to their character, and conspicuous in their brethren of Europe to the present day". This inference will hold good only if his theory of the arrival of Aryans to India is confirmed. There is also the theory of reverse migration. Here too, Williams ignores Advaita and the authority of a common group of texts called the Prasthānatrayam, translated as "the three sources": the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.

Clinging on to the theory, Williams says that, "when the Hindús settled down in the plains of the Ganges, their devotional tendencies began to develop. They became conscious of spiritual cravings which the cold formality of the Vedic ritual could not satisfy. There is in the human soul an inherent instinct which tends spontaneously towards its appropriate object and seeks union with the great Father of spirits as its natural resting place." He wonders: "Had a true revelation given the right direction to these yearnings, who can tell what an elevation the Hindú character might not have attained?"

Williams then finds solace in absurdity: "But left to think out for themselves the problem of existence, and acted on by a climate which stimulates the intellect while it indisposes to muscular activity, they (Hindus) lapsed into dreamy speculations. The present lost all reality. The future became all-important. The external world was an illusion (Máyá); life and activity were the sources of pain and evil. The only real thing was the divine soul, and the only real object to get rid of the fetters (guṇa) of existence, and merge all personal identity in the Infinite, as the river mixes with the ocean. This, without doubt, was the history of the pure theory of Hindúism, derived, as was supposed, from the Veda."

These views, according to him, were reconciled with the actual practice—with a complex ritual, a ponderous sacrificial system, and the idolatrous worship of later times. In the Veda, knowledge may be exoteric and esoteric. Sadly, Williams equates the Veda with the Qurán and says it has two parts, the outer and the inner; the one plain and obvious to all, the other hidden and intelligible to the few. The first called the Purvá-káṇḍa placed man’s chief end in works and ritual observances; the second or Gyána- káṇḍa held that knowledge of the supreme spirit was the all in all. "The esoteric doctrine being mystical and vague gave room for all shades of metaphysical investigation, and enabled its teachers to explain it differently, according to their several theories", Williams infers. He deliberately forgets that the Quran is considered to be the revelation accorded to one individual, whereas the Vedas extol pluralism. He scales the Everest of absurdity by commenting that "it is in the supplements to the Bráhmaṇas, called Upanishads, that we discern the first distinct traces of the spiritual doctrine." 

He continues:

"The material aspect of Hindúism, on the other hand, admitted that God had no form, but contended that he might assume various forms for particular purposes, like a light in the rainbow, and that external ceremonies and visible images of the Supreme, were necessary to impress the minds of the ignorant and bring down the Incomprehensible to the level of human understandings. According to this view, the vast system of Hindú mythology was nothing but the natural incrustation with which, by gradual accretion, the spiritual doctrine became overlaid, Ráma and Kṛishṇa were great kings and heroes; and as every human being was an incarnation of the Supreme, so in an especial manner were the great men of the earth, who thus became worshipped as portions of the one God by the intelligent, and as actual gods by those to whom the higher doctrine was unknown. But deified heroes and every god in the Hindú pantheon might become inferior to any mortal man, who by self-discipline and mortification assimilated himself more closely to the supreme spirit.

"However multiform, then, the various aspects of Hindúism, are all reconcilable by one Sanskṛit word derived from the root vid ‘to know, implying knowledge of the Deity according to two views, one popular, the other mystical. He who would seek either of these views in the Veda or in the Bráhmaṇas would seek in vain. It is in the Upanishads, that we discern the first distinct traces of the spiritual doctrine; and it is to the Epic poems and Puráṇas, which are comparatively modern works, some of the latter being as recent as the seventh or eighth century of our era, that we must look for the more popular view."

Advising the Missionary

Thus, Williams concludes that everything converges into Sanskrit and the use of it is important to the missionary. Sanskrit, he avers, is the sacred and learned language of India, the repository of the Veda in its widest sense, the vehicle of Hindú theology, philosophy, and mythology, the source of all the spoken dialects, the only safe guide to the intricacies and contradictions of Hindúism, the one bond of sympathy, which, like an electric chain, connects Hindús of opposite characters in every district of India. Without a trace of shame, he adds: "There can be little doubt that a more correct knowledge of the religious opinions and practices of the Sanskṛitic Hindús, or as we may call them the Hindús proper, is essential to extensive progress in our Indian missions". He advances some lessons to the missionaries then:

"This knowledge is best gained first-hand from Sanskṛit books. The Christian missionary who attempts to hold discussions with educated natives without an acquaintance with the Sanskṛit language may be strong in intellect and faith, but resembles a man shod in iron walking on ice. He has no certain standing ground and must either slip altogether or advance with timid hesitating steps. Not that the Hindús with whom he converses are likely to be Sanskṛit scholars. Real Pandits are, after all, rarely to be found in India, except in the neighbourhood of the great seats of learning, and the ignorance of the mass of the population is notorious. But what we assert is, that the national character is cast in a Sanskṛit mould and that the Sanskṛit language and literature is not only the key to a vast and apparently confused and unmeaning religious system, but is also the one medium of approach to the hearts of the Hindús, however unlearned, or however disunited by the various circumstances of country, caste, and creed. 

"It is, in truth, even more to India than classical and patristic literature was to Europe at the time of the Reformation. It gives a deeper impression to the Hindú mind than the latter ever did to the Europeans; so that a missionary at home in Sanskṛit will be at home in every corner of our vast Indian territories. To the Indian missionary, first, the use of Sanskrit as the root and source of the spoken languages; and, secondly, its use as a key to the literature, and, through that, to the opinions and usages of the Hindús."

According to Williams, when the Sanskṛit-speakers (Aryans) migrated towards the East, they brought their language with them. The language of the Ṛig-Veda is perhaps the nearest approach to the original speech of the early settlers; and the simple style of the code of Manu, the two heroic poems, and the dramas, which are full and vigorous, but not artificial, is probably a fair representation of the more formed dialects of the Hindús when they had settled down in the plains of the Ganges. As this language gradually worked its way towards central and southern India, it found the ground already occupied by the Scythian dialects of the primitive immigrants. The collision of these rough tongues with the powerful Sanskṛit was like the conflict of a sturdy dwarf with a strong man armed. The rude dialects, of course, gave way, but not until they had left indelible traces of the struggle on the Sanskṛit of both high and low, Bráhmans and Śúdras. As time went on, however, the effects of the collision grew fainter in the Sanskṛit of the Bráhmans, and the language of learning and literature gradually perfected itself, till it reached an excess of elaboration and refinement, quite unsuited to the purposes of ordinary speech. In the dialects of the lower classes, on the other hand, the impression of the original tongues grew deeper and stronger, till it disintegrated the language of the people into Prákṛit."

Why the missionary should study Sanskrit? Williams answers:

The Prákṛits or vernacular tongues of the present day represent Sanskṛit in its later stages of decomposition, and variously modified by collision with the primitive dialects of different localities. Hindí is the speech of 30 million people. This has a multitude of modifications in various provinces. Urdú is Hindí mixed with the Arabic and Persian of the Muhammadan conquerors. Bengálí maintains a closer connection with its parent Sanskṛit than any other form of Prákṛit. Maráthí and Gujaráthí, neither of them wide departures from the original Sanskṛit. In Orissa, there is Uriya, closely united to the same stem, and nearly related to Bengálí. In the Panjáb we have Panjábí; in Sindh, Sindhí; in Nepál, Nepálese; in Asam, Assamese; in Kaśmír, Kaśmírian; all branches from the Sanskṛit stock. In every one of these dialects, the proportion of Sanskṛit words varies from 75% to 90% of the entire vocabulary. As to the south of India, the more powerful and civilized Scythian tribes retained their independence, and with it the individuality of their native tongues. Yet the four South-Indian languages, Tamil, Telugu, Kanarese, and Malayálam, though distinct in structure, and referrible to the Scythian or Turanian type, take from Sanskṛit an infinity of words relating to science, law, religion, caste, and the various incidents of Hindú life.

Sanskṛit then, represented by the code of Manu, the Rámáyaṇa, Mahá-bhárata, and the drama, though called a dead language, is really the living stem through which the vernacular tongues of India draw sap and substance and life itself. By its means, an entrance may be made good into every dialect, spoken by Hindús, in every corner of our Eastern empire. It is therefore the best general language that can be studied in England by those who are destined for Indian life, and ignorant of the particular locality in which their lot may be cast. Williams advises:

"The second use of Sanskṛit, for the missionary, is, as the only vehicle of Hindú literature. In European countries, literature changes with the languages. Each modern dialect has its own literature, which is the best representation of the actual condition of the countries and the characters and habits of its present inhabitants. But the literature of the Hindú vernacular dialects is scarcely yet deserving of the name. In most cases, it consists of bad reproductions of the Sanskṛit. To understand the present state of Indian society, which varies little from the stereotyped laws ever stamped on Eastern manners, to enable us to unravel the complex texture of Hindú feelings, and explain inconsistencies otherwise inexplicably, we must trust Sanskṛit literature alone. Sanskṛit is the only language of poetry, drama, religion and philosophy, and of that celebrated code (Manu), composed many centuries before the Christian era, which is still the basis of the civil law of the Hindús."

Finally, Williams preaches the overthrow of Hinduism, through Sanskrit:

"If the missionary desires to understand the system which he seeks to overthrow, if he wishes to gain a correct insight into the national mind, to acquire any real hold on the hearts of the natives, and conciliate respect for himself and his office, he ought to know Sanskṛit. Many will imagine that we are here proposing an impossible task. Sanskṛit may be presented in an aspect so forbidding as to deter the most venturesome and discourage the most ardent. The very word Sanskṛit expresses, as we have seen, almost infinite elaboration. We may so direct our attention to the language and the literature, that its vastness and complexity will appear overwhelming. Quality with a Hindú might be said to mean quantity, were it not that it often consists of the most laconic brevity. No arithmetical rule seems to be so cultivated by them as that of multiplication, yet no mental operation is so well understood as that of concentration. The excellence of grammar is measured by the multiplicity of rules, and the excellence of rules by the oracular obscurity with which they are expressed. Although in history, geography,- and some of the natural sciences,

"Sanskṛit is avowedly defective, scarcely a subject can be named, in other departments of literature, on which a greater number of treatises, ranging between the two extremes of prolixity and condensation, could not be produced in Sanskṛit than in any other language. The dictionary may be made to teem with roots, each root multiplying within itself till it becomes prolific of innumerable words. Words, again, may be linked together, till one compound occupies two or three lines, and every sentence becomes a riddle, which even a good scholar may spend hours solving. The study of the language thus presented will seem like the attempt to reach the highest peak in a range of hills. The weary traveller, when, after long toil, he reaches the apparent summit, sees other heights stretching out before him in an interminable vista. It is clear, that if there were no other aspect of Sanskṛit, and if nothing could be done to simplify its study, it must ever remain a terra incognita to the missionary. Armed to do battle with Indian superstition, he feels that he must be equipped with other weapons besides Sanskṛit. He must, before all things, be a skilled divine, properly versed in Biblical knowledge, and ought not, therefore, to be ignorant of Greek and Hebrew. He should be acquainted with the general structure of Arabic,—a language peculiarly interesting to the missionary from its close relationship to Hebrew, and most important as entering largely into Hindústání, and embodying the sacred literature of the Muhammadans. He will have to be a perfect master of at least one vernacular; and he ought to be trained in logical disputation, to cope with acute and argumentative Pandits."

How to master the language? Here is Williams' prescription to the missionaries:

"Little help in this respect can be looked for from native Pandits. To them, the difficulty of Sanskṛit is its chief merit. They regard it as evidence of the sacredness of the tongue, which they worship as a deity. Their whole object seems to be to prevent the intrusion of the vulgar by surrounding the grammar with a thorny hedge of technicalities. To facilitate reading through modern typographical improvements is a desecration of their divine alphabet, which was invented to enshrine the divine sound, and not to carry ideas most quickly to the brain through the eye. Hence it happens that very few natives, except Pandits, can read Sanskṛit; still, fewer can understand more than the commonest proverbial aphorisms; but all will listen to the sound with the utmost reverence as if the sense were immaterial.

So, study Sanskrit in England. Williams enumerates the advantages:

"In studying Sanskṛit in England, these views need not, or rather cannot, be maintained. We are ready to bend to Sanskṛit more than we have done to ancient Greek. The pronunciation need not be Anglicized: but all that relates to writing and printing must bend to us. Our practical spirit peremptorily requires that the eye, already overtasked, shall be consulted in Sanskṛit, even more than in less difficult languages, by the distinctness of typography, spacing, and punctuation. The notion of printing to suit the ear more than the eye is to us as incongruous as that of using a locomotive on the water or driving it over a mountain instead of through it. Such notions must at once be repudiated. Again, Sanskṛit grammar must be stripped of its mysticism, and its technicalities swept away, with all needless incrustations. A railroad must be carried through all its difficulties, and no affectations of the scholarship must interfere with our reaching our terminus as easily and rapidly as possible."

Williams stresses that the job of the missionary is different:

"Our end is not Sanskṛit, but something beyond. We wish to know the spoken languages, to know the people, and to gain most shortly and quickly the mind, the heart, and the soul of the native. Nor is there any reason why Sanskṛit should not condescend to be made easy, like other languages. With the aid of many elementary works, and useful editions already published in this country, the missionary may gain all the knowledge of it he requires before leaving England. The difficulties, at least, of the language should be conquered in this country.

"When a missionary has the fatigue of daily preaching, and, perhaps, native churches to superintend, he is utterly unequal to the drudgery of Sanskrit grammar. In England, with judgment in his method of study, he may effect much. The language and the literature have really two aspects, one simple and natural, the other complex and artificial. In the one, words are made subservient to ideas; in the other, ideas are subservient to words. We have already shown, that the simple and natural form of Sanskṛit leads directly to the spoken dialects, and contains all the useful portions of the literature. The missionary need only make good such an acquaintance with the grammar as will enable him to understand any passage in the simpler and more useful departments of the literature.

Then the missionary will have to teach the Hindus, the Bible:

"In translating the Bible, composing, and preaching, he will have to draw all his religious terms from a Sanskṛit source. It cannot be too often repeated, that if the millions of India are to be enlightened, it must be principally through native instruction conveyed in the vernacular tongues. It is, therefore, a fortunate circumstance that there exists in India an inexhaustible fountain of supply for modern terms of science and theology. Sanskṛit is not merely the key to the dialects as they are at present spoken: it is also the best and most appropriate instrument for purifying and enriching them. Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this language and its power of compounding words, that when it has been, so to speak, baptized and thoroughly penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek, the most expressive vehicle of Christian truth."

What should the missionary read in Sanskrit?

"(The missionary's) attention will probably be confined to works illustrating the principal successive phases of the Hindú religion, such as the hymns of the Veda, the Upanishads, the systems of philosophy (darśanas), Manu, the two heroic poems, and Puráṇas. About the Veda, since portions of it, serve to this day the purpose of liturgy, both in the domestic and public rites of the Hindús, such portions should, of course, be understood; although, as repeated from memory and not from books, they are difficult to procure. Some of the hymns of the Ṛig-Veda should be read, especially the hymn at the end of the second volume of the printed edition, which contains the Gáyatrí, or holy verse, repeated by every Bráhman at his morning and evening devotions. If the text is not within the missionary’s reach, Professor Wilson’s translation may be consulted without difficulty.

"As to the philosophy, it is absolutely essential he (missionary) should have a clear idea of the leading features of the Vedánta system. This may be done with the aid of Dr Ballantyne’s various works and valuable translations. Still, a careful examination of the Vedánta-sútras would be of great advantage; and in some localities, as at Benares, it would be desirable to master the Nyáya and Sánkhya as well as the Vedánta. At Nuddea, the Nyáya should have the preference. The Bhagavad-gítá should also be well examined, and its meaning thoroughly sifted. All Pandits are, more or less, philosophers; and as they are an influential class of men throughout India, the missionary should win their attention, and disarm their animosities, by showing them that he understands and appreciates their views and attainments. If he can quote from philosophical books like the Bhagavad-gítá, his own religious instruction will come with greater weight.

"Many Pandits, to this day, are convinced that religious truth expressed in any of the modern languages is like milk in a dogskin vessel, rendered impure by its vehicle, whereas conveyed in Sanskṛit it is like pure milk in a pure vessel.
"About the Post-Vedic literature, the code of Manu is written in the simple style of Sanskṛit, and particular portions should be studied. Many of its enactments are now, however, out of date and have been superseded or amplified by more modern legal works, of which the code of Yájnavalkya, with its commentary on the Mitákshara, is, perhaps, the best known. The Rámáyaṇa and Mahá-bhárata belong also to the non-artificial style of composition and are most important in their bearing on the present forms of Hindú religious worship. Unfortunately, they are far too long to be read consecutively. Abridged vernacular translations exist, and the originals should be consulted in particular passages. As to the Puráṇas, the Vishṇu-Puráṇa, translated by the late Professor Wilson, gives a good idea of this department of literature. The most important, as we have already shown, is the Bhágavata. A fair knowledge of the most essential part of it (the tenth book) may be acquired from its Hindí paraphrase, the Prem Ságar.

"The moral, political, and didactic Ślokas, called Chánakya, current throughout India, containing brief sententious precepts in the proverbial style, often in praise of learning and virtue, should be studied by every missionary. Many useful ones will be found scattered through the Hitopadeśa, Manu, the Mahá-bhárata, and Bhartṛi Hari, and a certain number of them might be committed to memory with the greatest advantage."

Williams finally propounds from the pulpit of Oxford, a distribution of the Bible to all Hindus:

"Without such knowledge, the truths of Christianity may be powerfully preached, translations of the Bible lavishly distributed, but no permanent influence will be gained, no mutual confidence enjoyed, no real sympathy felt or inspired. Imbued with such knowledge, all Englishmen resident in India, whether clergymen or laymen, might aid the missionary cause more than by controversial discussions or cold donations of rupees. A great Eastern empire has been entrusted to our rule, not to be the theatre of political experiments, nor yet for the sole purpose of extending our commerce, flattering our pride, or increasing our prestige, but that a benighted population may be enlightened, and every man, woman, and child, between Cape Comorin and the Himalayas, hear the glad tidings of the Gospel. How, then, have we executed our mission? Much indeed has been done; but it may be doubted whether much real progress will be made till a more cordial and friendly understanding is established between Christians, Hindus, and Musalmáns, — till the points of contact between the three religions are better appreciated, and Englishmen are led to search more candidly for the fragments of truth lying buried under superstition, error, and idolatry".

Moniere Williams thus showcased not his scholarship, but his missionary zeal and bigotry.


_______________________

1. Williams, Moniere, The Study of Sanskrit about Christian Missionary Work in India. Williams and Norgate, Edinburgh, 1861. All the quotes from this edition.
2. Olivelle, Patrick, Manus Code Of Law: A Critical Edition And Translation Of The Mānava Dharmaśāstra (2005), Oxford University Press, pp. 41–49
3. Ibid,  pp. 24–25
4. Ibid, pp. 353–354, 356–382
5. Burnell, Manusmriti, 1884, pp xxix


© Ramachandran

Monday 20 February 2023

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

FEATURED POST

BAMBOO AND BUTTERFLY: A MALABAR WOMAN FOR BRITISH RESIDENT

The Amazing Life of a Thiyya Woman S he shared three males,among them a British Resident and a British Doctor.The Resident's British ...