Sir William Jones in India: An Estimate

DR. L. S. R. KRISHNA SASTRY

Andhra University

It was in Calcutta that Sir William Jones founded the Asiatic Society in 1784 and presided over its activities till 1794, the year of his premature passing away. Jones had in mind the Royal Society and hoped that the Asiatic Society too would, in the fullness of time, grow into a mighty lighthouse sending out rays of knowledge in different directions. The blueprint for the functioning of Society was given by him, and under his dynamic leadership Society explored many areas of Asiatic knowledge and laid first few spans of the bridge of Indo-British understanding, only boundaries were the geographical limits of Asia and the Society included in its purview all the branches of knowledge pertaining to this territory: ‘Man and Nature; whatever is performed by the one, are produced by the other’. The ideal was translated into reality in more than an adequate measure and Jone’s work during these eleven years testifies to the notable part he played as of the great pioneering Orientalists.

Firstly, as President of the Society, Jones, gave annual discourses and there are addressed to different aspects of Asia–her history and geography, philosophy and religion, art and literature. In first anniversary discourse Jones narrates the circumstances under which he visualised the Society during his voyage to India, and in the second, he defines the aims and objectives, and suggests true mission of the Society: “...although we must be conscious of our superior advancement in all kinds of useful knowledge, yet we ought not therefore to condemn the people of Asia, from whose researches into nature, works of art, and inventions of fancy many valuable hints may be derived for our own improvement and advantage. If that, indeed, were not the principal object of your institution, little else could arise from it but the mere gratification of curiosity; and I should not receive so much delight from the humble share, which you have allowed me to take, in promoting it”. He felt that a study of the civil history of the various empires of Asia would be of value to the Europeans and believed that an exploration of the vegetable systems and mineral resources of these areas would serve the double purpose of utility and research. He thought the Indian system of medicine too would reveal several useful points to the Western student.

The third anniversary discourse delivered in 1786 is a brief survey of the natural history of the Hindus. He points out the vastness of the country and proceeds to say that essentially the look and outlook of the Indian people remained unchanged through the ages. He then praises the excellences of the Sanskrit language: “The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either,” and affirms that these three languages must have had a common source of origin. With regard to Indian philosophy Jones says that ‘Pythagoras and Plato derived their sublime theories from the same fountain with the sages of India;’ in the matter of religion too the deities worshipped in India, Jones points out, were worshipped under different names in old Greece and Italy. He then undertakes a discussion of the mythology of the East and West with a view to determine the chronology of the Hindus. Indian art is next dealt with by him and he convincingly establishes an affinity between Egyptian and African art on the one hand and Indian art on the other. The ancient legal system of the Hindus is later stressed by him–this was a field dear to his heart which absorbed the best of his labours–and then he refers to the Indian ethical tradition. He mentions the Hitopadesa of Vishnusarman and says that ‘the first moral fables, which in Europe, were of Indian or Ethiopian origin.’ He expresses the hope that if the numerous works in India in the fields of grammar and logic, rhetoric and music were to be projected before the world at large, the true inventive genius of India would be fully appreciated and applauded. Jones finally refers to the affinity between the Hindus and various other peoples–Persians and Ethiopians, Egyptians and Phenicians, Greeks and Tuscans, Scythians and Celts, the Chinese and the japanese–and conjectures that all these peoples proceeded from some central country.

The fourth discourse, delivered in 1787, was devoted to a discussion of the Arabs–their chronology and history, language and culture. As regards the religion of the Arabs, Jones remarks that till the time of the Mohammedan revolution they were mostly theists, though among the lower classes a ‘stupid system of idolatry’ prevailed. He adds that they did not have a philosophy worth the name and that even their ethical system was quite depraved till the time of Mohammed. Even their antiquities were not carefully preserved and reliably described. As for arts and sciences, Jones continues, the Arabs did not have the necessary ground and climate for the cultivation of either. They, however, excelled in poetry and rhetoric in some measure, and in military prowess too they were redoubtable. Jones concludes the survey saying that the Hindus and Arabs are two distinct races, although they were bound by ties of trade and commerce from times immemorial.

The fifth anniversary discourse, addressed to the Tartars, was delivered in 1788. First the geography is vividly described and then Jones proceeds to point out that the Tartars did not have any written literature or continuous literary tradition. In religion there were probably some similarities between them and the Arabs but of philosophy they had hardly anything and even the laws, if they existed, were not preserved. The conclusion of Jones is noteworthy: “...the far greater part of Asia has been peopled and immemorially possessed by three considerable nations, whom, for want of better names, we may call Hindus, Arabs, and Tartars; each of them divided and subdivided into an infinite number of branches, and all of them so different in form and features, language, manners and religion, that, if they sprang originally from a common root, they must have been separated for ages.”

The sixth anniversary discourse, delivered in 1789, was a study of the Persians. Again, the geography is first dealt with and then Jones discusses three dialects of the country–the Parsi, the Pahlavi and the Zend. Even here Jones makes the point that there was an original affinity between the peoples of the different parts of Asia which is borne out by a close examination of the languages. The religion of Iran, Jones adds, was such that it inculcated a firm belief that One Supreme God made the world by his power continually governed it by His providence. There was also due reverence towards parents and aged persons, a fraternal feeling towards the whole human species and a compassionate tenderness even for the brute creation. It is, however, a matter for regret that the system was too perfect to have a long duration. Jones then convincingly argues that the Mahabad of ancient Iran, who was their earliest ruler and law-giver and who had thirteen descendants after his name, was no other than Manu. In fact, the Persian Sufi cult is in many respects comparable to the Bhakti cult in India, and this again strengthens the point that India and Persia have an immemorial affinity, although the architecture of Persia comes no where near its Indian version.

The seventh discourse on the Chinese was delivered in 1790. As usual, Jones deals with the geographical boundaries first and proceeds to say that the Chinese were originally a particular martial race of the Hindus themselves. The Foe of the Chinese, he argues, was no other than the Buddha of the Hindus. In racial features and systems of ritual there might be differences because four thousand years or more separated them.

The eighth anniversary, dealing with the borderers, mountaineers and islanders of Asia, was delivered in 1791. Here too Jones points to a common origin. Along with several other historians of Indo-Aryan mythology, Jones too believed that a close study–linguistic and historical–of the different systems of idolatry would point to a common origin of all the racial and religious features of the various Asiatic races. The preface to Jones’s hymns addressed to Hindu deities contain perspicacious comments on the theme.

The ninth discourse, delivered in 1792 and addressed to the origin of families and nations, gathers into a single knot all the threads of the preceding essays. Jones expresses his belief in the naturalistic theory that in the beginning there must have existed a single pair created by God in some particular spot of the globe and that eventually, in geometric progression, the human family should have grown and afterwards migrated into different parts of the world. He was also sure that this growth and migration must have taken place after Christ, because there was no written evidence of any, certain monument, or even probable tradition’ about still earlier periods. Jones supposed that the history of Moses in Hebrew was more than human in its origin, and consequently true and every substantial part of it, though possible expressed in figurative language included that ‘the whole race of man proceeded from Iran as from a centre, whence they migrated at first in three great colonies and that these three branches grew from common stock, which had been miraculously preserved in a general convulsion and inundation of this globe.’

The tenth anniversary discourse, delivered in 1793, was concerned with Asiatic history–civil and natural. Jones reiterates the authenticity of Mosaic history as a source of ‘revelation’ of the primitive world and goes on to present ‘a few particular observations’ on the history of India, which he considered the centre of their enquiries. The very first sentence is a key beginning in metaphorical terms: “Our knowledge of civil Asiatic history (I always expect that of the Hebrews) exhibits a short evening twilight in a venerable introduction to the first book of Moses, followed by a gloomy night, in which different watches are faintly discernible, and at length we see a dawn succeeded by a sunrise more or less early according to the diversity of regions.” Jones deplores the lack of any authoritative history of the Hindus but feels that the Puranas and Itihasas contain useful enough fragments of history. After a few remarks on history, Jones passes on to geography and chronology, which, however, he leaves to two of his colleagues–Lieutenant Wilford and Mr. Davis–for exhaustive treatment.

Jones then proceeds to the domain of ‘nature’, as distinguished from ‘man’, and this he divided into three areas: the other animals, the mineral substances, the vegetables. In zoological investigation, Jones was one of those who believed that the animals should not be treated mercilessly and reduced to ‘guinea-pigs’. With regard to metals and minerals, Jones makes a reference to the ancient Asiatic knowledge preserved both in Persian and Sanskrit. Asiatic botany, he finally says, would provide ample scope of fruitful exploration to the European and adds that a study of all these aspects of Asiatic knowledge should be adequately illumined a proper appreciation of the literatures of the various countries.

The eleventh and last discourse, devoted to the philosophy of the Asiatics, was delivered by Jones in 1794 in the month of February and after a few weeks he passed away. Philosophy, according Jones, is that which is created by the reasoning power of man, and so Asiatic philosophy is divided into five categories: physiology and medicine, metaphysics and logic, ethics and jurisprudence, natural philosophy, and mathematics. All these diverse branches of knowledge are ably surveyed by Jones and he recommends a close and interested study of all these aspects of Asia to the Westerner.

Besides the eleven anniversary discourses which were delivered before meetings of the Society, Jones also published several ‘dissertations’ in the volumes of Asiatic Researches of which he was the editor from 1789 to 1794. These learned essays are no less noteworthy for their rare versatility and rich informativeness.

The first of his notable dissertations was the Orthography of Asiatic Words in Roman Letters, finished in 1786. The essay is a unique linguistic contribution. Jones felt that there was need for a fool-proof and scientific system of transliteration which was based on a close acquaintance of Hindu phonemics. He filled the inadequacy of the Roman orthography, which was incapable of representing all the English sounds, especially the vowel sounds, by using the French diacritical marks over the vowels. Thus, “he had devised a miniature, first International Phonetic Alphabet for four languages, specifically ruling out the representation of Chinese dialects by his system.”

The second dissertation, On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India, first written in 1784 and revised subsequently, is again a perceptive essay on Indo-Aryan mythology. Jones suggests four principal sources of all mythology: historical or natural, truth perverted into a fable by ignorance, imagination, flattery or stupidity; a wild admiration of the heavenly bodies, and the systems and calculation of astronomers; the creation of divinities by the magic of poetry; and ethics and metaphysics that tend to objectify metaphors and allegories as deities. Jones is struck by the concept of ‘three’ as common to both Hindu and Western systems of pantheism and tries to suggest quite a few parallelisms. He succeeds in convincingly establishing a common source of polytheism for the Indian, Italian and Greek systems. Although the prefaces to the nine hymns to Hindu deities throw suggestive hints, it was through this essay that Jones gave the Westerner a first idea of the fascinating subtleties of Indo-Aryan mythology.

Another important theme which attracted the attention of Jones is the chronology of the Hindus. He was the first European scholar to turn to this subject. He establishes, in his essays, a plausible consistency between the Western and Eastern concepts of chronology. He identifies the Sandrocottus referred to by Megasthenes and other Greek historians as chandragupta Maurya, and this was a useful hint which prompted several historians to revise their notions and see Indian history in proper perspective.

On the Musical Modes of the Hindus, written in 1784 and later enlarged, is a fascinating treatise on Indian music. In this Jones expounds the philosophy of music and analyses its technique with a rare critical acumen. The last sentence–“I must now with reluctance bid farewell to a subject, which I despair of having leisure to resume” –is eloquent about his intense love for the subject of Indian music.

An Essay on the Poetry of the Eastern Nations, written during the same period, is alike remarkable for the brilliant exposition of Arabic poetry. He expresses his belief that if Eastern poetry–Arabic poetry in particular–is studied by the Westerners, “a new and ample field would be opened for speculation; we should have a more extensive insight into the history of the human mind, we should be furnished with a new set of images and similitudes; and a number of excellent compositions would be brought to light, which future scholars might explain, and future poets might imitate.” This is indeed more than generous praise of Eastern poetry; it is as well a fervent plea for a literary cross-fertilisation.

There are quite a few other essays of Jones relating to such a variety of fields as archaeology and zoology, botany and medicine. They too exemplify Jones’s many-sided intellectual activity as President of the Society. In his own professional field as a jurist, Jones tried his best to preserve the legal tradition of the Hindus, and the fact that he could not complete The Ordinances of Manu–the Indian law digest–on which he was working with such tenacity and vigour till the time of his passing away, is only a cruel decree of fate.

The eleven discourses delivered before the Asiatic Society and the very many notes and dissertations included in the volumes Asiatic Researches constitute a valuable part of Jones’s work are remarkable both for the variety of the subjects discussed or introduced and for the clues and cues thrown out. Whatever he touched upon, whether it is music or mathematics, science or religion, literature or history, he brought an open and zealous mind to bear upon the work. Whatever the subject, it is always a labour of love and there is never the taint of dogma. They evidence a true spirit of inquiry and appropriately show in action the ideals of the Society of which Jones was the distinguished President. Campbell’s praise that “in the course of a short life Sir William Jones acquired a degree of knowledge which the ordinary faculties of man, if they were blessed with antediluvian longevity, could scarcely hope to surpass,” is no formal tribute but rather the just description of the reality, for in a short span of forty-six years Jones encompassed so wide a spectrum of knowledge.

During the period 1784-89, Jones published his translations from the Sanskrit, and the nine hymns to Hindu deities and The Enchanted Fruit. This marks a yet different stage in Jones’s Oriental work, for here his critical appreciation of Asiatic culture matured into creative communion. He was the first Westerner to render Kalidasa’s Sakuntalam into English and even his translations of Hitopadesa and Gitagovinda, parts of the Veda and Bhajagovinda are equally notable. They all reveal the work of a great pioneer and deserve attention for their fidelity and viability, and compare very favourably with later renderings.
The Enchanted Fruit is an impressive poem about the five Pandavas and their consort, Draupadi. It is, however, the nine hymns to Hindu deities that mark the culmination of Jones’s work as an Orientalist. These hymns are addressed to Kamadev, the Hindu god of love, Prakriti–as Durga and as Bhavani–Indra, Surya, Lakshmi, Narayana, Saraswati and Ganga. Each hymn is preceded by an argument which throws light on the relevant aspect of Indian mythology. Though the hymns demand separate attention, even a rapid survey is not full without a reference to A hymn to Narayana, which isrightly regarded as the best of the hymns. Here is beauty of form and thought doubled by an imaginative identification on the part of the poet. The poem is an ineluctable vivification of the story of creation. The hymn begins with an address to the Spirit of Spirits:

Spirit of spirits, who, through ev’ry part
Of space expanded and of endless time,
Beyond the stretch of lab’ring thought sublime,
Badst uproar into beauteous order start,
Before Heav’n was, Thou art!

It was onlyat His bidding and through His ‘mystic love’ that things in creation sprang to life. This ‘illusive operation’ is performed by Him through the agency of Brahma. Whatever exists and is visible is only a manifestation of God but is not real. It is this transcendental sense of the One that makes Jones’s poetic emotion reach a point of sublimity:

My soul absorb’d One only Being, knows,
Of all perceptions One abundant source.

Poetry here blazes with pure incandescence and feeling rises to climatic heights. The hymn stands out in the entire series as the most convincing. East and West do seem to draw closer, and the fusion of Eastern and Western poetic traditions that Jones throughout his critical writings wanted his countrymen to attempt, he so ably accomplished in the hymns. The dry neo-classical tradition is richly revitalised and one even discerns the shadows of the coming Romantic Movement.

On a total view, one finds that the Indian period of Jones from 1783 to 1794 in Calcutta was purposive though short. It was not only the best part of his life, but the most glorious period in the history of the Asiatic Society. As commentator and critic, translator and poet, administrator and jurist, he strove to bring his native and adopted countries together for mutual benefit. He was a true linguist in employing language as an instrument of cultural dissemination. He translated from such a variety of Asiatic languages, enriched English literature and orientalised many an English poet. Fully human and richly humanistic, he trusted India and was accepted by it. It is men like him that imparted a higher purpose to the British rule in India, and the Indians too are grateful because he initiated the phenomenon of the Indian Renaissance.