Jean-Denis Lanjuinais. 1823. “Analyse de l’Oupnek’hat.” Journal asiatique. April 1823. pp. 213–236.
In 1657 Dārā Šokōh, firstborn son of Mughal emperor Shah Jahān, commissioned Serr-e akbar, a translation of fifty-two Upaniṣads into Persian. In 1801 and 1802, Abraham-Hyacinth Anquetil-Duperron published his Latin translation from the Persian, entitled Oupnek’hat: (id est, Secretum tegendum): opus ipsa in India rarissimum, continens antiquam et arcanam, seu theologicam et philosophicam, doctrinam, è quatuor sacris Indorum libris, Rak Beid, Djedjr Beid, Sam Beid, Athrban Beid, excerptam: ad verbum, e Persico idiomate, Samskreticis vocabulis intermixto, in Latinum conversum: dissertationibus et annotationibus, difficiliora explanantibus, illustratum.
Anquetil-Duperron’s work, according to Antoine Jean Saint-Martin’s brief introduction to this article, was characterized by a strictly literal system of translation, “which made such a beautiful work almost unintelligible.”1 Only Jean-Denis Lanjuinais was able to undertake the painful business of understanding this work and intelligently reviewing it. And since Lanjuinais’ review was published only once, in the Magasin Encylopédique année 9, the Société Asiatique saw fit to reproduce it here.
Lanjuinais begins by noting that even though many Sanskrit manuscripts of the Vedas are extant in Europe, the Sanskrit language itself is poorly known. Anquetil-Duperron’s translation from Persian of the Upaniṣads should therefore excite our interest. Lanjuinais stokes our interest with lavish praise of Anquetil-Duperron:
| Dans cet état, l’Oupnek’hat d’Anquetil Duperron, cette version latine et littérale d’une traduction persanne de longs extraits des quatre Védas, contenant l’ancienne théologie et la philosophie secrète de l’Inde, doit encore exciter vivement l’intérêt et l’attention des gens de lettres. La nature du sujet, l’antiquité du système, les rapports frappans avec d’autres systèmes européens, ancien et modernes, le nom célèbre et la profonde érudition du traducteur, son voyage dans l’Inde, le long séjour qu’il y a fait, par un dévouement admirable à la recherche des anciens monuments et à l’avancement des sciences, sa vie stoïque, sa vieillesse laborieuse, son caractère originale et d’une rare franchise, son style vigoreux, ses pensées grands, hardies, profondes, ses réflexions et les doctes recherches littéraires et historiques, philosophiques et théologiques, commerciales et politiques, dont il a enrichi cette production; tout dans cet ouvrage pique la curiosité des lecteurs. | In this state of affairs, the Oupnek’hat of Anquetil-Duperron, this literal Latin version of a Persian translation of long extracts of the four Vedas, containing the ancient theology and secret philosophy of India, should vividly excite the attention of men of letters. The nature of the subject; the antiquity of the system; the connections found with other European systems ancient and modern; the celebrated name and profound erudition of the translator; his voyage to India; the long sojourn he had there, with an admirable devotion to the research of ancient monuments and to the advancement of the sciences; his Stoic lifestyle; his productive old age; the originality of his character with his rare frankness; his vigorous style; his grand, hardy, and profound thoughts; his reflections and the learnèd literary and historical, philosophical and theological, commercial and political researches, which have enriched this publication; everything in this work piques the curiosity of readers. |
Lanjuinais agrees that the text of the Upaniṣads is quite ancient, approaching the date of the Flood. The texts are based on the belief in God, creator of all things. Anquetil-Duperron cites passages from Strabo, Plutarch, Ambrose, from the Mahābhārata, and so on to prove the continuity of the basic Indian belief in a supreme deity.
Lanjuinais defends Anquetil-Duperron’s word-for-word Latin translation, which preserved the original word order of the Persian:
| Anquetil prétend, et avec assez de raison, qu’en matière de philosophie et de théologie, le respect pour la vérité oblige à traduire très-littéralement les originaux. | Anquetil claims, and with good reason, that in matters of philosophy and theology, respect for the truth requires one to translate the originals very literally. |
Anquetil-Duperron’s introduction to the translation is a theological and philosophical comparison of the Upaniṣads with the works of famous rabbis, the Church fathers, Catholic and Protestant theologians, and with other modern thinkers. He organizes the comparison along four themes:
- The Supreme Being, his nature and attributes
- The origin of the world via emanation or via creation
- The existence of a supernatural and intellectual world far anterior to our own
- The influence of the stars on the earth and on terrestrial bodies
On fourth point, Anquetil compares Upaniṣadic thought with northern European theories of correspondence, citing the 1555 Harmonia cœlestium corporum et humanorum of Antoine Mizuald, the Tractatus de magnetica curatione vulneris citra ullam et superstitionem, et dolorem, et remedii applicationem of Rudolph Goclenius (1572–1621), as well as the writings of Emmanuel Swedenborg!
Lanjuinais sums up Anquetil-Duperron’s introduction as follows:
| Le résultat général de cette dissertation est que les dogmes de l’Inde, sous le nom de doctrine orientale, ont passé des Indiens aux Perses, des Perses aux Grecs, des Grecs aux Romains; qu’ils nous sont aussi parvenus par le nord de l’Europe; qu’enfin rien n’est nouveau pour un homme instruit, rien n’est absolument mauvais, et que tout ce qui est mauvais renferme l’indice ou le germe de ce qui est bon. | The general result of this dissertation is that the dogmas of India, under the name of Oriental doctrine, passed from Indians to Persians, from Persians to Greeks, from Greeks to Romans; that they have now appeared in the north of Europe; that ultimately nothing is new for an educated man, nothing is absolutely evil, and that everything which is evil contains the index or the germ of that which is good. |
He compares the philosophical system of the Upaniṣads to some modern European intellectual currents:
| Ce système est un vrai mélange de Spinosisme ou de panthéisme, de théosophisme ou d’illuminisme, de quiétisme, et même d’idéalisme à la manière de Berkeley. | This system is a true mélange of Spinozism or of pantheism, of Theosophism or Illuminism, of quietism, and also of idealism in the manner of Berkeley. |
Even though this motley mixture of ideas might seem inexact, chimeric, or puerile, we must acknowledge that this corpus draws upon “the most sublime principles of religion and morality.”
Lanjuinais then surveys Anquetil-Duperron’s translation thematically, beginning with passages related to God, and it is here that the Journal asiatique ends its reprint of the review.
1: Max Müller, in the preface to his translation of the Upaniṣads for the Sacred Books of the East series, says that Anquetil-Duperron’s translation “was written in so utterly unintelligible a style, that it required the lynxlike perspicacity of an intrepid philosopher, such as Schopenhauer, to discover a thread through such a labyrinth.” Friedrich Max Müller 1879. The Upanishads. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. lviii–lix. ↩
