October 2008 Archives

Jean-Denis Lanjuinais. 1823. “Observations sur quelques Ouvrages de Rammohun-Roy.” Journal asiatique. October 1823. pp. 243–249.

Lanjuinais, who had already reviewed the Anquetil-Duperron’s Latin translation of Dārā Šokōh’s Persian translation of the Upaniṣads, takes up the exciting work of Rāmmohun Rōy, the celebrated scholar of Calcutta who began publishing English translations of Upaniṣads and Vedānta philosophy.

Lanjuinais compares Rōy’s translation of the Īśa Upaniṣad to those of Sir William Jones and of Anquetil-Duperron. Jones and Rōy are praised for their accuracy and concision, while Anquetil-Duperron is criticized for his “long and useless paraphrasing” and the “insertion of words and dogmas wholly Islamic”, undoubtedly due to the intervening Persian translation.

Lanjuinais then notes that Rōy’s purpose in translating the Upaniṣads was to find native Indian resources for combating polytheism. He writes approvingly of Rōy’s condemnation of satī using ancient Indian literature, which, to Lanjuinais’ mind, will be the only way of dissuading modern Hindus from their old barbarisms:

On ne portait point de lois nouvelles chez les Hindous; ou s’en tenait à d’antiques et prétendues lois révélées, et à des usages que les grands précédens avaient, disait-on, recueillis, et qu’ils avaient dans la suite éclaircis ou embrouillés par des commentaires qui ne sont pas toujours d’accord entre eux. One should bring no new laws among the Hindus; one should stick with ancient or supposedly revealed laws, and to customs which the great forbears have, one might say, collected, and which have been in the meantime clarified or muddled by commentaries that no longer agree with each other.

Benjamin Fürchtegott Balthasar von Bergmann. 1823. “Exposé des principaux Dogmes tibétains-mongols.” Journal asiatique. October 1823. pp. 193–204.

This is an excerpt from the work of Benjamin Bergmann, translated into French by Moris. Bergmann begins by claiming a connection between Tibeto-Mongolian religion and Indian religion, and the list of reasons he gives are quite interesting:

  1. India was once the cradle of the human race, and therefore of the first religion.
  2. The great antiquity which Indian traditions give to this origin, which they place before that of Brahmā.
  3. The enthusiasm for Indian wisdom which prevailed in Europe and Asia, and which must have been communicated also to the Mongols.

So what are the primary simlilarities between Indian religion and Tibeto-Mongolian religion?

partie dans leurs principaux dogmes, savoir: La chute des esprits et celle des hommes, la migration des ames, les châtimens futurs et les purifications; partie dans les suppositions cosmogoniques; partie enfin dans une foule d’usages religieux qui diffèrent fort peu entre eux chez les Indiens et chez les Tibétains-Mongols. partly in their principal dogmas, namely: The descent of spirits and that of men, the transmigration of souls, and future punishments and their purification; partly in their cosmogonic suppositions; and partly in the number of religious customs which differ very little between the Indians and the Tibeto-Mongols.

For Bergmann, any differences in their doctrines and practices are due to independent developments once the cultures became separated in place and time.

Bergmann makes some interesting comparisons. For example, the Indians venerate the “Trimoutri” (Skt. trimūrti), three deities as an expression of one god. The Mongols, on the other hand, have “trois sublimes honorables” (three sublime venerables), by which they mean the Buddha, the dharma, and the saṅgha (“la sainteté du Bourkhan, le dogme et les prêtres”).

The remainder of the article is dedicated to an outline of the Tibeto-Mongolian cosmos, including the sky-god Tengri, the axis mundi of Mount Sumeru, the great oceans and world-continents, the size of the sun and moon, the gradual decline of human lifespans and glory over successive æons, and so on.

M.F. Littré. 1823. “Sur la Chrestomathie sanskrite de M. Frank.” Journal asiatique. July 1823. pp. 51–56.

Here Littré reviews the Sanskrit chrestomathy of Othmar Frank (1770–1840), published in 1820 and entitled Chrestomathia sanskrita, quam ex codicibus manuscriptis, adhuc ineditis, Londini exscripsit, atque in usum tironum versione exposuit, tabulis grammaticis, etc., illustravit et edidit. This was a useful work, with selections from the Mahābhārata and from the works of Śaṅkara, printed in devanāgarī with romanizations and commentary on the texts.

This gives Littré occasion to discuss the various processes for printing books with devanāgarī:

Les caractères dévanagari ne sont pas moins rares en Allemagne qu’en France. M. Bopp, qui a donné en 1818, l’épisode de Nala, autre pièce tirée du Mahabharata, a fait imprimer son livre à Londres, avec les beaux caractères de Charles Wilkins, l’un des hommes qui, de nos jours, ont le mieux mérité de la littérature sanskrit; le petit nombre de mots sanskrits, employés par M. de Schlegel, dans sa Bibliothèque Indienne, proviennent d’un caractère qu’il a fait graver à Paris, chez M. Lions. Pour M. Frank, il a été obligé d’écrire lui-même tous ses caractères dévanagari dans des espaces ménagés, sur la feuille où il avait fait imprimer toutes les parties de son travail qui sont écrites en caractères romains, et de les lithographier ensuite. Il ne lui a pas fallu moins de cinquante-neuf pierres pour lithographier tout l’ouvrage, et c’est certainement ce travail long, difficile et dispendieux, qui le tient au prix élevé auquel il se vend. The devanāgarī fonts are no less rare in Germany than in France. Mr. Bopp, who published in 1818 the episode of Nala, another piece taken from the Mahābhārata, had his book printed in London, with the beautiful fonts of Charles Wilkins, one of the most well-learned men in Sanskrit literature of our time. The small number of Sanskrit words used by Mr. de Schlegel in his Bibliothèque Indienne come from a font which he had struck in Paris, by Mr. Lions. As for Mr. Frank, he had to write all his devanāgarī characters himself in blank spaces on the page where he had to print all the parts of his work which were written in Roman characters, and then he had to lithograph them afterwards. He needed no less than 59 stones to lithograph the entire work, and it is certainly this long, difficult, and expensive work that contriuted to the high price at which it sells.

Littré then notes that Bopp and Frank were both sent by the Bavarian government to Paris and London to train themselves in Indian literature, and to bring their knowledge back to their homeland. In London, Frank had met Mr. Ekenstam, a Swedish scholar on a similar mission. Littré praises the productivity of the German scholars, who have published useful editions of texts and comparative grammars. He then complains about the situation of Sanskrit studies in France, despite the nation’s great collections:

En France, quoique nous possédions une foule de manuscrits sanskrites, et malgré la zèle des savans recommandables qui se sont occupés de la littérature indienne, nous paraissons moins avancés. La bibliothèque royale renferme le Mahabharata en entier; elle en possède en outre plusieurs parties séparées, et, entre autres, deux copies du Bhagavat-gita. Il suffit de jeter les yeux sur le catalogue dressé en 1807 par M. Hamilton, et traduit par M. Langlès, pour voir que les ouvrages les plus importans de la littérature indienne sont à Paris, et que cette capitale est après Londres la ville d’Europe qui offre à exploiter la mine la plus riche. In France, although we possess a wealth of Sanskrit manuscripts, and in spite of the zeal of the commendable scholars who occupy themselves with Indian literature, we appear less advanced. The Royal Library has the entire Mahābhārata; it also has many other separate parts of it and, among others, two copies of the Bhagavadgītā. One only has to glance at the catalog made by Mr. Hamilton in 1807, and translated by Mr. Langlès,1 to see that the most important works of Indian literature are in Paris, and that this capital is, after London, the European city which has the richest mine to be exploited.

Despite the royally established chair of Sanskrit at the Collège de France, despite the prestigious Société Asiatique, the French still have no Sanskrit grammar, and no primers for the beginner in the language.

Littré finishes with his favorable review of Frank’s chrestomathy, praising in particular his ability to pique our curiosity about the philosophical writings of Śaṅkara. But one gets the sense that the real purpose of the review was to inspire the French to work harder to compete against their German and British colleagues.



1: Littré here refers to a catalog jointly authored by Langlès and Hamilton in 1807, entitled Catalogue des manuscrits samskrits de la Bibliothêque impériale avec des notices du contenu de la plupart des ouvrages.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2008 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2008 is the previous archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Pages