Truths.European Christians in History. War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation, Exploitation

To this book We are what we know. We know what is handed down. Our daily life is organised by “historical narrations”. Universally. To judge over the validity of “historical narrations” and of history, we must know all about those narrators of history. Today, and during the last two centuries, all narrators of history are educated in institutions created by European Christians. They narrate history incoherently though the history all over is coherent and interdependent. The libraries are flooded by incoherent deliberations and with books that are copied and pasted from other books. This is more so since the rise of the Ottoman Empire, since the blockade of the land route

and beginning of search for a sea route to India, and all that has followed thereafter until our days. Why do they narrate incoherently though historical developments are coherent and interdependent by its nature? Why do they copy and paste and duplicate? To judge over the validity of “historical narrations” in their books, the authors of this book search and investigate into the acquired qualifications and “careers” of all main narrators of this history. The search is based on primary documents. The result of this search is thrilling, mysterious and stunning. We are fed by books that are based on secondary sources. These books are mere propaganda, which should be stored in “bad libraries”. The result of this search has banged on the Pandora’s Box and it is open now.

About the Authors PRODOSH AICH (1933), born in Kolkata, studied PHILOSOPHY in India, ETHNOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY and SOCIOLOGY in Germany, taught social sciences at the universities at Cologne, (Germany), Rajasthan (Jaipur, India) and Oldenburg (Germany). He wrote Farbige unter Weißen (Coloured amongst Whites) in 1962. Two of his books: Die Indische Universität (The Indian University) 1971 and Rathaus-Plünderer (City-hall Plunderers) 1986 were sabotaged. Preis des aufrechten Gangs (Thorns on a Righteous Path) in 2001 includes Die indische Universität and tales all about the struggle that went on for thirty-five years. Lügen mit langen Beinen (January 2003; LIES WITH LONG LEGS (August 2004) Besides books he has made radio features and

documentary films for Television. He is an Indian though living in Germany for a longer period than most Germans.

M.V.R Nair was born in Thiruvananthapuram in 1976. After completing his studies in Civil Engineering from University of Kerala, he started his technical career in India, At present, he is continuing his technical career abroad. He considers himself a history enthusiast with an active interest in ‘Indology’. He has been communicating with Dr. Aich after reading the book ‘Lies with long legs’ and working with him ever since in search of truths.

Truths. European Christians in History War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation, Exploitation

? Documented by

Prodosh Aich and MVR Nair

Prodosh Aich & MVR Nair

Truths.

War, Robbery, Murder, Genocide, Occupation, Exploitation Churches, Universities, Demigods, like Max Müller prepare the Ground

Acharyya Publishers Science in Critical Review

Copyright @ 2014 Acharyya Publishers Science in Critical Review Uferstrasse 40 A, D – 26135 Oldenburg Cover design eBook: Daniel Penschuck, Feindesign Oldenburg, Germany E–Mail: [email protected] Website: WWW.acharyya.de

All rights reserved with the Publisher. No Part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronics, mechanical,

photocopying, translated, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publisher

First Printed Edition Published in India Published in March 2015 by RARE PUBLICATIONS T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Tamil Nadu, India

E-Mail : [email protected] Website : www.rarebooksonweb.com Printed in India at Jayaa Prints, Chennai Email: [email protected]

ISBN 978-93-83826-21-3 HC ISBN 978-93-83826-21-6 PB ISBN 978-3-7375-4189-3 E-Book

PREFACE Life is full of surprises. The paths to insight, knowledge and truth are also full of surprises. The authors of this book come together by remarkable circumstances. These two authors belong to two distant generations. They live also at two distant places. The younger one is born in 1976, and brought up in Kerala, India. The other is born in 1933, and brought up in Bengal, India. The connecting link is that both are on the paths to gain insights, to acquire knowledge and to get to truths. Both authors are on search. Both authors are not inclined to take it as a coincidence that they have come together. Not even

as unforeseeable coincidences. Both authors have learnt to shed off beliefs and superstitions. They want to know. They try to explain whatever comes across. There are many persons on the paths to gain insights, to acquire knowledge and to get to truths. The contemporary societies do not offer facilities to getting together of these persons. How could they get together? In this particular case, the two authors of this book, both are agonized by the distortions of the cultural heritage of Bharatavarsa, a vast land which has later been named India by foreign people. These deliberate distortions of the cultural

heritage of Bharatavarsa have been brought into the world by the foreign occupants and then further cultivated by their local stooges. In the beginning of their getting together the agony of the two authors is at different realms and levels. There are many persons suffering from such agonies. But how could they get together? Both authors are also distressed becoming more and more sensitive on the continuous worsening of the Era of Vasco da Gama, which began by the declaration of a War by the European Christians on the rest of the world in the 15th century. The Vatican sanctioned the Kings of Portugal and

Spain to occupy foreign lands and to annex these lands to their kingdoms. This World War is being executed by European Christian Kingdoms under different masks. This World War is based on robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained exploitation of people all over the world. European Christians do suppress this past governing over mass media. From the beginning of this inhuman Era till this day, manifold efforts are undertaken to veil and cover the vicious doings of the European Christians as well. Yet it seems, despite everything, the mind of a substantial

number of human beings cannot be managed to that extent that they do not register contradictions in the numerous tales told. One such contradiction determines the younger one of the authors, born in 1976, living somewhere in the world, to the elder one, born in 1933, living somewhere in the world, to write a long e-mail on December 23, 2009: “... Please allow me to thank you for your excellent work titled "Lies with long legs". (I got this email of yours from Shri. Sanjay Chaudhri) I read "Lies with long legs" during Aug 2009, ever since I have been not able to stop myself from reading it again and again.

The book is a mine of knowledge and it essentially demolishes many long standing myths perpetrated by the colonialists. I am writing this mail for clarification of one doubt regarding Max Mueller. In your book, you have emphatically stated that Max Mueller's educational qualification (both his M.A & Ph.D) are based on "hearsay" and no documentary evidences support this claim.

But according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_M%C3 ( ...)”. This mail has lit a spark. The elder one has responded. This spark has consequences; unforeseeable

coincidences? This is the beginning that two searchers and re-searchers for truths get together, toil together that has lead to the book that has been completed in September 2014. The seed of December 23, 2009, seeking a clarification of one apparently negligible issue of swindle regarding Max Müller, has sprouted, the sprout has grown and the growth reveals a world of swindles. The seed was of a “Banyan Tree”. None of these two searchers and researchers would have continued this search in the way they have done and would have written this book individually. These two searchers and re-searchers have never met personally,

never talked to each other on telephone. They have made use of the digital technology which is a typical product, a typical invention of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Unforeseeable coincidences? These two searchers and re-searchers have taken note of George Orwell‘s novel “Nineteen Eighty-four” as an exemplary “intellectual” product of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Being a European Christian, George Orwell successfully veil the war-crimes committed by the European Christians and divert attentions creating a virtual world of a Big Brother’s “official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past by a

totalitarian or authoritarian state”. This “Nineteen Eighty-four” is manipulation of human past par excellence. George Orwell ignored completely even the recent history that the European Christians, represented by the Pope and Kings of Spain and Portugal declared War on the rest of the world in the 15th century, a war that has not come to an end yet. The non-Catholic Kings in Europe have taken over the War from the Catholics and this declared World War by the European Christians is still accelerating. The Anglo-Saxon Christians, in Kingdoms or in so-called democratic states are in the forefront since the 18th century.

George Orwell is being celebrated by those major profiteers of this World War and by their university-trained “intellectual prostitutes”. In majority, the “intellectual prostitutes” are European Christians. And there non-Christian stooges as well, integrated in the same culture. George Orwell was, to be benevolent, at best blinded. He did not take note of the criminal developments of arms, of the Atom bombs dropped in Japan by his fellow European Christians who are still keeping foreign lands under occupation named “America”. He did not live long enough to experience that his not- “Big Brothers” started creating the digital technology even before “Nineteen Eighty-four” to gain absolute

control of the mankind, of course not as “totalitarian states”. No. These “Big Brothers” do it in disguise of being the champions of “democratic”, “constitutional” and “free-market” states”. We are unable to be benevolent towards these states and towards their “intellectual prostitutes”. Their Kingdoms, States, Churches and Universities practice systematically “official deception, secret surveillance, and manipulation of the past” and of course indiscriminate killings of human beings, their own “soldiers” included. These two searchers and re-searchers, the authors of this book, know about the

implications of using a “desk top” or of any other so-called fast-calculators, of using the internet, and of using the “smart phone”. They are conscious about the implications of the companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, Linkedin, You Tube and the institution called Wikipedia financed by “Foundations”, founded by rich European Christians with tax-free money. Their obvious purpose is to limit the universe into their virtual worlds, and thus to manipulate the whole humankind in perfection. They bury science and create technologies to keep all human beings busy in their virtual worlds inhumanly. The malice of this undertaking is that all

these institutions are greedy too. These oligopolies are in constant competition with each other to become monopoly. The authors of this book know that their “Banyan Tree” would not have grown in those five years, from 2009 to 2014, without this malice of digital technology. They are thankful to have used this devils’ technology to bring out some of the truths. This is not unforeseeable coincidence. This is one of the major ways how truths come out. Max Müller is a demigod in India. The Federal Republic of Germany uses Max Müller for its propaganda not only in all cultural matters in India. All over the world the Federal Republic of Germany

call their propaganda institution “Goethe-Institutes”. In India, they call it Max-Mueller-Bhavan. The intention of this manoeuvre is obvious. Young Indians should believe that in Max-MuellerBhavans the spirit of Max Müller prevails. It is like coming home. It is the Bhavan (residence) of Max Müller. He is not an Indian. He is more than an Indian. He has been propagated as a real friend of India and of Indians. He has saved the ancient Indian Culture, its vast literature in a no more spoken language called Sanskrit. He is much more than the Rishis, the seer-scientists of Bharatavarsa. Visiting a Max-Muller-

Bhavan should create a feeling like coming home. So it is systematically propagated. This story is utter swindle and shameless as well. Yet this story has been accepted by the Republic of India. How long will this acceptance prevail? The authors of this book on their search and re-search are thankful to this Max Müller, who has left behind so many authentic traces and trails not only to uncover his charlatanry and swindles. His case becomes exemplary as it uncovers and exposes also his consorts. Thus Max Müller uncovers the role of the European Christian Churches, Kingdoms and Universities, in short, to the growth of this “Banyan Tree”, the

book titled TRUTHS. The authors are thankful to all those persons who have been dealt with in the book for their being careless in not being able to destroy all traces and trails of their mischievous doings. They might have been too busy, always to be on the run, to have destroyed all traces and trails of their doings. They might have realised that it is more difficult to undo all traces and trails than to lay false tracks or to heave rubbish on traces and trails, layers after layers. Whatsoever, they have thus contributed to reveal truths. This is a way how truths come out. Of all documented primary sources, the

collections of personal and private letters of the major actors have proved to be most reliable. Especially the handwritten letters. Deciphering Max Müller’s letters to his mother is a terribly difficult job. These are written in German handwriting letters of his time (1823 – 1900). His handwriting is, mildly stated, difficult to read. It is difficult to identify contemporary persons able to read in a German script that is older than the Sütterlin scripts. Many thanks to Helga Bross. She toiled a lot to learn reading the old Kurrent scripts in Max Müller’s style and then helped the authors to decipher and transcript those many letters.

Unforeseeable coincidences? Or is this a way how truths are revealed?

Contents INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 PROLOGUE CHAPTER 2 WHO IS MAX MÜLLER M.A.? CHAPTER 3 FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN’S SCHOOL DAYS AT LEIPZIG CHAPTER 4 WHICH QUALIFICATIONS DOES CHAPTER 5 LEARNING SANSKRIT IN GERMANY IN GENERAL AND AT LEIPZIG IN PARTICULAR CHAPTER 6 WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN

CHAPTER 7 EUROPEANS ENCOUNTERING SANSKRIT CHAPTER 8 WHY DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN GO TO PARIS? CHAPTER 9 WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN CHAPTER 10 WHAT DID FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER CHAPTER 11 THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE SANSKRIT HOW DOES IT TRAVEL FROM CHAPTER 12 WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER DO IN LONDON? CHAPTER 13 FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER CHAPTER 14 THE EUROPEAN SANSKRIT SCHOLARS

CHAPTER 15 DOES MAX MÜLLER FLEE ALSO FROM LONDON? OR DOES HE SEEK A REFUGE AT OXFORD? CHAPTER 16 “A CONFESSION” CAME PRIOR TO THE MOMENTS OF TRUTH. MOMENTS OF TRUTH BEGIN TO ARRIVE CHAPTER 17 MOMENTS OF TRUTH BEGIN TO CONTINUE CHAPTER 18 MOMENT OF TRUTHS – HOUR OF DECISION CHAPTER 19 INDOLOGY, LINGUISTICS, CHAPTER 20 DIRTY MORASS ALLEMCOMPASSING CHAPTER 21 EPILOGUE

INTRODUCTION This book does not pretend to deal with history. This book deals with our past and with our present by connecting facts that have been disconnected by so-called philosophers, historians, and social scientists in general and by “scholars extraordinary” in particular. It looks back to ancient heritage based on primary documents and evidences. This book does not intend to describe our past, does not intend to add just another story to the lot, as modern historians do. It simply puts facts coherently together that are based on primary documentary sources. It is a

report of a rigorous scrutiny of secondary sources. It puts scholars and their scholarly deliberations to the test of validity collating their biographies and their deliberations with the primary documents. The authors of this book do not claim to be scholars in the prevailing international academic culture. They have become simple-minded in course of time. They just want to know things and matters as these actually are and how these things and matters came into being. They constantly try to shed off virtual worlds created by superstitions, beliefs, ideologies, systems of artificial terminology and all that goes with these creations. They do exercise in careful

reading. And while they read, they raise questions and questions, digging back to the beginning, to the origin. This methodology is learnt from the wisdom that is practiced in daily life through ages in all human societies. This wisdom is simple. Whenever someone tells a tale, two simple questions are to be put to begin with: who is the narrator and how does the narrator come to know what he is telling about. The authors begin the presentation of their documentary journey to our past and present putting these two simple questions to a Max Müller, M.A. Why Max Müller, M.A.? All queries to

human cultural heritage automatically lead to the “East”, to “Orient” and thus to the cultural heritage of Bharatavarsa, a vast land which has later been named India by foreign people. None else has left behind more printed pages on the “East” and on “India” than Max Müller. He has also claimed to be the first human being performing the remarkable Hercules-job, collecting and editing the oldest book that the humankind has ever known: the complete Rig Veda in the Sanskrit script. Sanskrit is an ancient language. Another reason to begin this search and re-searches exemplarily with the detailed biography of Max Müller is

that he is kept as a demigod in the Gallery of all-time Scholars very high who seemingly excelled in the Science of Ancient Cultures, as one of those European Christian intellectual giants. In any standard books on History and culture we find quotes like: “The German Indologist H. Jacobi came independently to similar conclusions and dated the beginning of the Vedic period in the middle of the 5th millennium. Mostly one followed, however, the dating set by the famous German Indologist Max Mueller who taught in Cambridge in the late 19th century. Setting out from the lifetime of the Buddha around 500 BC he dated the

origin of the Upanishads in the centuries from 800 to 600 BC as the philosophy in them had originated before Buddha’s deeds. The Brahmana– and Mantra texts preceded these in the centuries from 1000 to 800 respectively from 1200 to 1000 BC. Today one dates the oldest Vedic text, that of Rigveda, into the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. Since the Vedas soon after this genesis as a divine manifestation were not allowed to be changed anymore and handed down to our contemporary time by priest families verbally in an unbelievably precise manner, they can now be considered, after their dating can be regarded as being fixed at least in specific centuries, as historical

sources of first rank for the history of the Vedic society in northern India.” Nothing in this quote is based on primary sources. Absolutely nothing. These types of loose writings are based actually on “modern-science-rituals” of “copy and paste” from available printed pages. Take palatable parts from printed secondary sources, add some new bits of “information” or “imagination”, make it plausible, and make it sellable. In this way these secondary-source-writings create virtual worlds of fantasy with sellable qualities only. Unless the claims are collated with career-data of the celebrated authors, the truth will never be unveiled. None of the

claims of any European Christian intellectual giants have been challenged or put to the test of validity. This is unsurprisingly done in this book. In course of the journey along with the real biography of Max Müller, M.A., for example, it is revealed, we apologise looking a little ahead, that his claims are swindles. It is also revealed that his biography is exemplary to this culture. We are surprised to note that Max Müller was kept on the payroll of the British East India Company to accomplish his scholarly jobs; from the very beginning of his occupational career. Yes, the British East India Company. And what did the British East India Company do in Bharatavarsa?

It is remarkable that in the cultural heritage of Rig Veda there is no mention of a land or of a geographical area which is called “India”. This is all the more remarkable because this cultural heritage includes vast number of profound books on knowledge, science, philosophy and literature. Rig Veda is the first of the four Vedas composed in the Vedic language. The other profound books are handed-down in the Sanskrit language that emerged later. There are two more ancient languages, Prakrit and Pali following Sanskrit. Also in the post Vedic books in the Sanskrit language there is indeed mention of a vast geographical area of culture called Bharatavarsa. The name “India” is

obviously accorded by foreign people, most probably by the Hellenes in the Greek language. For convenience the authors of this book use “India” keeping Bharatavarsa in mind. After the unsuccessful foray of Alexander the Macedonian, about 2400 years back, the Hellenistic diplomat Megasthenes stays in Bharatavarsa as Ambassador of Seleucus I for eleven years. He writes four bulky volumes on his observations and experiences there, but he does not write on the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes, nor makes any special references to languages. This may indicate that the Hellenes were quite

familiar with these books and with the languages. However, this is not known. It is known that the cultural heritage of India was not brought to Christian Europe in the Greek language. Whatever the Hellenes have reported on India comes to the rest of Europe much later, after the Europeans have lived around a thousand years in Christianity. The first recorded real encounter of European Christians with India goes back to the beginning of the 16th century. The “Thomas Christians” a few hundred years earlier, were immigrants in the south of Bharatavarsa. They never went back to Europe. Vasco da Gama was the next. Vasco da Gama and the

“Vasco da Gamas” do not arrive in India on foray like Alexander the Macedonian or quite a few Islamic ruffians; they are on war and lay the foundation of foreign occupation of “India”, along with the Christian Orders of the Vatican in Goa. Yet, whatever is known about this ancient cultural heritage of Bharatavarsa in our time is not conveyed in Latin or in Portuguese languages. These are conveyed mainly in the English language. This is so in today’s India as well. Most of the authors of those books are Europeans Christians from British “United Kingdom”. The questions arise inevitably, why in English and how these

authors writing in English or in some other contemporary European languages could know about the ancient cultural heredity of Bharatavarsa? Did they learn the Vedic, Sanskrit, Prakrit or Pali languages? Where, when, from whom, for how long? The knowledge accumulated in Bharatavarsa in course of time immemorial is stored in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes, either in the Vedic language or in the Sanskrit language. Before the creation of scripts these treasures were preserved in oraltradition. The oral-tradition exists also in today’s India, parallel to the writtentradition that emerged logically much

later than the oral-tradition. The parallel existence of oral and written tradition has preserved the ancient books undistorted. At least three gulfs have to be bridged before one reaches the treasures stored in the Vedic language and the Sanskrit language. The modern European languages have emerged recently. There is an immense gap in terms of time. Another gap is in terms of the difference in culture. Third gap is in terms of the differences in depth and richness of these two sets of languages, the Vedic language and the Sanskrit language in one side, and the European languages on the other. Were these divides bridged? How could these divides be bridged?

All major European Christian authors have, however, claimed that they translated the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and the likes from the original “Sanskrit” language. The Vedas are composed in the Vedic language. The Sanskrit language is postVedic. Well, we may let this ignorance regarding the Vedic language be. But how do they overcome those three Gulfs? Apart from the issues of their ignorance regarding the Vedic language, their efforts bridging the Gulfs, it has then to be explicated at least where, when, from whom and for how long these European Christian authors had chances to learn this obscure foreign

language called Sanskrit. The next issue is to scrutinise the lifecareer of those European Christian authors individually, beside Max Müller, who handed-down the accumulated knowledge in Bharatavarsa to their fellow European Christians in European languages. This may appear to be an easy undertaking whenever one gets into a “modern” library. There are so many books and plenty of reference books in the libraries introducing and specifying those individual European Christians who are credited accomplishing this difficult performance. But is it so? How reliable are these printed papers? It is, de facto, not an easy undertaking to

scrutinise all those printed papers. One has to demand proofs for almost each sentence. These readily available references books in the libraries do not disclose their sources. Therefore it is needed to search for primary sources in the archives. Whenever primary source is absent, the only conclusion would be that the version that has been scrutinised is a fake. The readily available reference books do not stand this test. These books are deceptive packages. These books are not authentic. These books do not carry truths. Arriving at this point one has to search for sources, for primary sources, look into the bio-data of those individual

European Christians in details to collate their writings to their bio-data. One has to collate each and every “fact” in the reference books with original documents. This has to be learnt by own experiences. We, the authors of this book, have undergone this toilsome process. Scholars belonging to this culture have never learnt to question their celebrated “intellectual giants” whether, where, for how long and in which educational institutions they acquired their claimed qualifications and abilities to read and understand the books written in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit languages. We, the authors of this book, have questioned these celebrated “intellectual giants”

decorating the reference books. What were their sources? Did they critically check their sources? Or were they just “imaginative”? These are the issues dealt in this book. The results of scrutinises presented in this book are based on documented primary sources only. The logic is simple and straightforward. Any deliberation which cannot be traced back to a primary source, and the referred primary source cannot stand the test of its validity, is faked. It is a tiresome searching job no doubt. But this hardship is necessary. This book is a proof that most of the secondary sources do not carry historical truths even in

parts. The consequent application of this simple and straightforward method of search and re-search has banged on the box of Pandora. This book opens up the whole panorama of swindles of the prevailing Era of Vasco da Gama. This Era is rooted in the declaration of War on the rest of the world by the European Christians in the 15th century. This declaration of War on the rest of the world is documented by two Papal Bulls. A War is never an end in itself, never a self-purpose. A War does never fall from the blue. A War is always planned and triggered by the better equipped power to gain economic power at the

cost of others. A War does never come to an end before the better equipped power wins. Or the better equipped power loses. There are always losers and winners. No exceptions. This book looks back to the beginning and looks into the continuous Warfare still going strong. The authors call this war to be the World War I, which is marked by relentless robbery, rape, murder, genocide, occupation, extensive exploitation and sustained exploitation! The authors apologise for using their simple, straight, undiplomatic, academically unusual language; and also for continuous references and reminders to hard facts. It might appear that certain

hard facts are being repeated. It is not exactly so. The repetitions of identical facts are not just repetitions; these repeated identical facts open up other panoramas, many other perspectives, in different contexts. They become more comprehensive vis-a-vis new contexts. The contents of documented primary sources are exactly cited and are not just reproduced in parts or narrated. Our book does not intend to be entertaining, does not intend to make anybody believe anything, but to unveil truths, removing rubbish and dirty covers, layers after layers, which have been deliberately thrown. Along with the rigorous scrutiny of Max

Müller’s biography, all other demigods and the major actors in this celebrated gallery are also taken under rigorous scrutiny with their economical, political and cultural background as well as their social settings. The box of Pandora is thus wide open.

CHAPTER 1

PROLOGUE Modern scholars and their sciences “No one who is at all acquainted with the position which India occupies in the history of the world, would expect to find many synchronisms between the history of the Brahmins and that of other nations before the date of the origin of Buddhism in India. Although the Brahmins of India belong to the same family, the Aryan or IndoEuropean family, which civilised the whole of Europe, the two great

branches of that primitive race were kept asunder for centuries after their first separation. The main stream of the Aryan nations has always flowed towards the North West. No historian can tell us by what impulse those adventurous Nomads were driven on, through Asia towards the isles and shores of Europe. The first start of these world-wide migrations belongs to a period far beyond the reach of documentary history; to times when the soils of Europe had not been trodden by either Celts, Germans, Slavonians, Romans or Greeks. But whatever it was, the impulse was as irresistible as the spell which, in our own times, sends the Celtic tribes

towards the prairies or the regions of gold across the Atlantic. It requires a strong will, or a great amount of inertness, to be able to withstand the impetus of such national, or rather ethnical movements. Few will stay behind when all are going. But to let one’s friends depart, and then to set out ourselves – to take a road which, lead where it may, can never lead us to join those again who speak our language and worship our gods – is a course which only men of strong individuality and great selfdependence are capable of pursuing. It was the course adopted by the southern branch of the Aryan family, the Brahmanic Aryans of India and

the Zoroastrians of Iran. At the first dawn of traditional history we see these Aryan tribes migrating across the snow of the Himâlaya southward to the ‘Seven rivers’ (the Indus, the five rivers of the Panjâb and the Sarasvati), and ever since India has been called their home. That before that time they had been living in more northern regions, within the same precincts with the ancestors of the Greeks, the Italians, the Slavonians, Germans and Celts, is a fact as firmly established as that the Normans of William the conqueror were the Northmen of Scandinavia. The evidence of language is irrefragable, and it is the

only evidence worth listening to with regard to ante-historical periods. It would have been next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between the swarthy natives of India and their conquerors, whether Alexander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language. What other evidence could have reached back to times when Greece was not peopled by Greeks, nor India by Hindus? Yet these are the times of which we are speaking. What authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian army, that their God and their hero ancestors were the same as those of King Porus, or to convince the

English soldier that the same blood was running in his veins and in the veins of the dark Bengalese? ... There was a time when the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavonians, the Greeks, and Italians, the Persians, and the Hindus were living together within the same fences, separate from the ancestors of the Semitic and Turanian races. It is more difficult to prove that the Hindu was the last to leave this common home, that he saw his brothers all depart towards the setting sun and that then, turning towards the south and the east, he started alone in search for a new world. But as in his language and in

his grammar he has preserved something of what seems peculiar to each of the northern dialects singly, alone, as he agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the German seem to differ from all the rest, and as no other language has carried off so large a share of the common Aryan heirloom – whether roots, grammar, words, myths or legends – it is natural to suppose that, though perhaps the eldest brother, the Hindu was the last to leave the central home of the Aryan family. The Aryan nations, who pursued a north-westerly direction, stand before us in history as the principal Nations

of North-western Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in the great drama of the history, and have carried to their fullest growth all the elements of acting life with which our nature is endowed. They have perfected society and morals, and we learn from their literature and works of art the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy. In the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history, and it seems to be their mission to link all parts of the world together by the chains of civilisation, commerce, and religion. In a word, they

represent the Aryan man in his historical character. But while most of the members of the Aryan family followed this glorious path, the southern tribes were slowly migrating towards the mountains which gird in the north of India. After crossing the narrow pass of the Hindukush or the Himâlaya, they conquered or drove before them, as it seems without much effort, the aboriginal inhabitants of the TransHimalayan countries. They took for their guides the principal rivers of northern India, and were led by them to new homes in their beautiful and fertile valleys.”

These few lines tell precisely the prevailing Modern History of Human Culture in a nutshell. Every sentence of this quotation seems to carry findings of meticulous research by scholars that have been summed up in these lines. Is it so? It is not so. Not a single source has been mentioned. So, for readers, for us, for our understanding there is only one alternative left. Either believe in this told history or reject. Nothing can be checked. Nothing can be known. As it is just mentioned, Modern History of Human Culture is founded on these lines whatsoever. Never before lines like these were published. Not a single line in this quote has been revised. Modern Scholars have believed in these

findings and have accepted these findings. Willingly, as it appears. One needs only to consult published literature. These lines are quoted from a celebrated scholarly book published in 1859 by a renowned scholar of that time who is well-celebrated till today. The inner title-page of this book is noteworthy. Here it is.

As simple - minded searchers, we have learnt to adopt the wisdom of our ancestors that is universally practiced in daily life through ages. Whenever we hear a tale or see something, we are alert and we are careful. From the inner title-page we come to know that the author is one Max Müller. He has acquired the academic degree of a Master of Arts. We all know that “Master of Arts” is an academic degree. It is, in simpler words, academyleaving-certificate indicating that the holder of the certificate did consume his years in the academy successfully. It is not a research degree. Research Degrees can only be acquired by doing

and publishing independent research. These are post M.A. degrees. Research Qualifications can also be acquired by doing and publishing research works. Therefore, we conclude that Max Müller, M.A., did not acquire a research a research degree up to the year 1859. This does not mean that Max Müller, M.A. has not acquired research qualifications. It would have been a better decoration of the inner-title page referring to eventual published research reports. We must look out whether, when, where and on what subjects he has done independent research. We have taken a note of our query and we shall follow it up. We must also know where

and from which College or University Max Müller has acquired his academic degree of a Master of Arts. ***** The title of the book “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE” assumes that Max Müller, M.A. has thoroughly studied ancient Indian history, ancient Indian literature and ancient Indian culture handed-down in an ancient Indian language called Sanskrit. We shall search for primary sources to check up these claims. We have read the sub-title of the book: “SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE

BRAHMINS” several times. The subtitle tells that Max Müller, M.A. has also acquired thorough knowledge of religions in general and specific knowledge of the religion of the Brahmins. And that the religion of the Brahmins has been qualified by Max Müller, M.A. as primitive. We shall search for primary sources to check up where and how he acquired these claimed competences. And we shall also have to know how Max Müller, M.A. defined the term “primitive”. ***** Further we are informed by the inner title page of the book that Max Müller, M.A. has also been attached to many

learned institutions. We come to know as well that, at least in 1859, Max Müller was “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford; Correspondent de l'Institut lmpérial de France; Foreign Member of the Royal Bavarian Academy; Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Literature; Corresponding Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal; and of the American Oriental Society; Member of the Asiatic Society of Paris, and of the Oriental Society of Germany; and Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford.” We admit we are unable to take this inner-title-page of the book. We do not find any systematic relationship between these 8 (eight) different institutions and

Max Müller, M.A. as the author of a book titled: A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE. As simpleminded readers and searchers for truths we wished to comprehend the purpose of all these information on the innertitle-page of this book. Yes, what could be the purpose? What is the purpose? Then we stumbled on “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford” on the top of the list and “Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” at the end. A college, we all know, is not a university. Colleges are for teaching and not for research. British Colleges at Oxford are no exceptions. For all practical purposes, “All Souls College” at

Oxford is biased by Christian belief and not laden with knowledge. Colleges like All Souls College do socialize its pupils to become Christian missionaries at a more effective level than those trained solely in Christian Churches and all that goes with it. Does this mention indicate his confession of being a Christian missionary? Or should it create some other associations? We are on alert. “Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford” should not create associations that All Souls College at Oxford is a part of Oxford University. “Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” does not indicate the subject. We became curious and did search and

digging. The results take us in surprise. Here are the results: A “Taylorian Professor in the University of Oxford” did never exist. There was indeed a Taylor Institution at Oxford, which was not a part of Oxford University. This institution organized lessons in “modern” European languages. Here is the story of the Taylor Institution in a nutshell. None of the colleges at Oxford, or Oxford University used to teach “modern languages”. In 1724, George I tried to initiate teaching of French and of German to train future diplomats at Oxford University. He failed. The Authorities of the University rejected the initiative. Oxford University

continued teaching Greek and Latin only. Years later, the notable architect Sir Robert Taylor (1714-1788) fixed in his will in favour of his only son, Michael Angelo Taylor, that a part of his huge fortune was to be spent to set up a foundation “for the teaching and improving those European languages … essential to Diplomatic and commercial pursuits” at Oxford. “After various legal complications and the death of Sir Robert's son, Michael Angelo, in 1834, the University inherited the sum of £65,000.” After many controversies “the Taylorian statute finally passed on 4 March 1847” for teaching European languages

and started with French and German. Even the newly constructed building of the foundation differs distinctly from that of Oxford University. It is known that Oxford University added the Boden Chair for Sanskrit to Greek and Latin in 1832. We are however unable to comprehend how a Taylorian Professor for Modern Languages, in the University of Oxford or just at Oxford, should be qualified to write a scholarly book on “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE, SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS.” Was it not a subject for the holder of the Boden Chair for Sanskrit? We have

taken this issue as a marker. ***** We also take note of several different status-descriptions in this remarkable list as well: Max Müller, M.A. is “Correspondent” Member, “Foreign” Member, “Honorary” Member, “Corresponding” Member and “Member” of an “Institute”, of an “Academy” in “Societies” in different Countries. What do these different types of membership indicate? It is even more puzzling when we look into the types and details of institutions mentioned. Because we stumbled, we wanted to get more details about these institutions. Here are the results:

Ø

Correspondent de l'Institut lmpérial de France. This Institute is in France happened to be not royal, not national, but it is imperial. Imperial has something to do with empire and empire has something to do with a geographically extensive group of lands and peoples, is something like making a conquest, an occupation, isn’t it? When was the institution founded, by whom, for what purpose? For how long did it exist? Did it really exist? We have reasons to maintain our scepticism as we don’t find answers to our questions.

Ø Foreign Member of the Royal Bavarian Academy. We assumed Max Müller is a German name. And Royal Bavarian Academy must have been a German institution. Our assumptions are correct. Why then “foreign member”? While trying to collect a little more information on this institution we stumbled again. “Royal Bavarian Academy” of what? Elector of Bavaria Max III Joseph founded in 1769 the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities in Munich. Then a school of Arts for drawing and graphic in 1770. King of Bavaria Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria

elevated this school to an Academy of Fine Arts in 1808 which was also called the "Royal Academy of Fine Arts" and never Royal Bavarian Academy. We wonder about this type of slip in the inner title-page of a scholarly book. Ø Honorary Member of the Royal Society of Literature. It must had been: The Royal Society of Literature in Britain, founded in 1820 by King George IV, in order to "reward literary merit and excite literary talent" Ø Corresponding Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. To be

accurate Max Müller’s “Asiatic Society” could at best be the “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, founded in 1784 in Calcutta by Sir William Jones. He is considered to be a scholarly demigod. A detailed hi(story) will follow after a while in a separate chapter. At present this much: The “Asiatick Society of Bengal” was the first factory for forging history and for brainwashing. And Sir William Jones was a high-graded swindler. Ø American Oriental Society was founded in 1842. This so-called oldest US learned society claimed

to deal with basic research in languages and literatures of Asia. It also claimed to deal with subjects like philology, literary criticism, textual criticism, palaeography, epigraphy, linguistics, biography, archaeology, and the history of the intellectual and imaginative aspects of Oriental civilizations, especially of philosophy, religion, folklore and art. Is there any area of so-called Humanities left? Quite naturally all European waves, also the orient enthusiasms, reached the European “colonisers” in “America” too. But learned societies for basic

research as well? Who were the “scholars”? Ø Asiatic Society of Paris. If one puts Asiatic Society of Paris in the search machines of the web, one gets something else. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, Asiatic Society of Japan - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and so on. If one goes deep, one finds in the “Bibliot. Nat. France cat.” a Société Asiatique, founded in1822. Ø Oriental Society of Germany. In the search machines of the web there

is no reference to a society called Oriental Society of Germany. The nearest approach would be: The Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (DOG), which is an “Eingetragener Verein” - a registered voluntary association -, based at Berlin in Germany. The DOG was officially founded in January 1898 to foster public interest in oriental antiquities. Then there was The Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (DMG), a scholarly organization dedicated to studies on Asia and on a broader Orient. The DMG was established on 2 October 1845 in Leipzig by leading

Oriental scholars from Germany, as well as members of other “Oriental Societies” such as the Asiatick Societies in Paris, London and Kolkata. We do not know whether others also stumbled so often while studying the inner title-page of this book as we did and/or how they reacted if they did actually stumble. Nothing is handed down on this issue. We are surprised. We have become apprehensive by this simple check-up, which leads us to ask questions like: Are these simple inaccuracies? Don’t they show too many facets to be accounted for as just careless inaccuracies? We remain apprehensive. That is why we raise

other questions like: Could there be a system behind these inaccuracies? Who is this Max Müller, M.A.? What is known about his life, work and career? What did he do? How did he earn his living? Which institutions recruited him? We have taken note of all these dissonances arisen in our mind about the author Max Müller, M.A. ***** It has not escaped our attention that there are no references to the sources in the entire text we have cited in the beginning of this chapter. Before we get into the issue of sources, we would like to turn back our attention to the quoted text in the beginning and start reading it more

carefully. As mentioned, we are simpleminded persons. We are slow in grasping because we read every sentence and try to comprehend the whole meaning. This is the way how we read. We apologise in advance if our mode of reading should irritate. But we are as we are. “No one who is at all acquainted(Max Müller obviously claims to be well “acquainted”) with the position which India occupies in the history of the world (Max Müller claims to be a “global” historian), would expect to find many synchronisms (! ?) between the history of the Brahmins (We shall have to verify his claim to know all about the Brahmins correlating the claims to his

biography.) and that of other nations before the date of the origin of Buddhism in India (Had there been ‘nations’ prior to Buddhism?). Although the Brahmins of India belong to the same family, the Aryan or IndoEuropean family (How has it been established that there was “the Aryan or Indo-European family”, when, by whom and how?), which civilised the whole of Europe, the two great branches of that primitive race were kept asunder for centuries after their first separation (“first separation”? Does Max Müller subtly intend to make us believe that there are Aryans and Aryans who are in fact Indo-Europeans? And that these “two branches of this primitive race”

separated at some “pre-historic” period? That one of the branches civilised the whole of Europe? That the branch of the Brahmins was inferior to those who had civilised the whole of Europe?). The main stream of the Aryan nations has always flowed towards the North West (How does Max Müller arrive to this assertion?). No historian can tell us by what impulse those adventurous Nomads were driven on, through Asia towards the isles and shores of Europe (Has there been any systematic ‘historical research’ on this issue?). The first start of these world-wide migrations belongs to a period far beyond the reach of documentary history; to times when the soils of

Europe had not been trodden by either Celts, Germans, Slavonians, Romans or Greeks (How can we know anything if it is beyond historical sources? How should Max Müller come to know about ‘the first start’?). But whatever it was (Obviously Max Müller is not keen to establish how it has been!), the impulse was as irresistible as the spell which, in our own times, sends the Celtic tribes towards the prairies or the regions of gold across the Atlantik. It requires a strong will, or a great amount of inertness, to be able to withstand the impetus of such national (?), or rather ethnical (?) movements. Few will stay behind when all are going. But to let one’s friends depart,

and then to set out ourselves – to take a road which, lead where it may, can never lead us to join those again who speak our language and worship our gods (gods?) – is a course which only men of strong individuality and great self- dependence are capable of pursuing (We are left speechless by these limitless fantasies!). It was the course adopted by the southern branch of the Aryan family, the Brahmanic Aryans of India and the Zoroastrians of Iran. At the first dawn of traditional history (What is traditional history? Who handed it down? When? Where is it available?) we see these Aryan tribes (!) migrating across the snow of the

Himâlaya (Is it by any means possible to migrate ‘across the snow of the Himâlaya’ on foot?) southward to the ‘Seven rivers’ (the Indus, the five rivers of the Panjâb and the Sarasvati), and ever since India has been called their home. That before that time they had been living in more northern regions, within the same precincts with the ancestors of the Greeks, the Italians, the Slavonians, Germans and Celts, is a fact as firmly established (‘firmly established’ by whom, how and when?) as that the Normans of William the conqueror were the Northmen of Scandinavia (What is the message behind this rather poetic narration: Only Aryan “tribes” have brought

‘civilisation’ to mankind? What about the Semites? Had there been other “tribes” also?). The evidence of language is irrefragable, and it is the only evidence worth listening to with regard to ante-historical periods (Max Müller claims to be an expert in ‘Linguistics’ also!). It would have been next to impossible to discover any traces of relationship between the swarthy natives of India and their conquerors, whether Alexander or Clive, but for the testimony borne by language (Is this a subtle message that the Christian occupants of in Bharatavarsa were not ‘colonizers` in fact? Did they just visit their relatives and they claimed their legal ‘heir’,

while they were indiscriminately?).

plundering

What other evidence could have reached back to times when Greece was not peopled by Greeks, nor India by Hindus (Which people “peopled” Greece and India and how did Max Müller come to know this?)? Yet these are the times of which we are speaking. What authority would have been strong enough to persuade the Grecian army, that their God and their hero ancestors were the same as those of King Porus, or to convince the English soldier that the same blood was running in his veins and in the veins of the dark Bengalese? ... There was a time when the ancestors of the Celts, the

Germans, the Slavonians, the Greeks, and Italians, the Persians, and the Hindus were living together within the same fences, separate from the ancestors of the Semitic and Turanian races (That is it!). It is more difficult to prove that the Hindu was the last to leave this common home, that he saw his brothers all depart towards the setting sun and that then, turning towards the south and the east, he started alone in search for a new world. But as in his language and in his grammar he has preserved something of what seems peculiar to each of the northern dialects singly, alone, as he agrees with the Greek and the German where the Greek and the

German seem to differ from all the rest, and as no other language has carried off so large a share of the common Aryan heirloom – whether roots, grammar, words, myths or legends – it is natural to suppose that, though perhaps the eldest brother, the Hindu was the last to leave the central home of the Aryan family (We shall have to scrutinise meticulously where, when, from whom Max Müller could have learnt which languages!). The Aryan nations who pursued a north-westerly direction, stand before us in history as the principal Nations of North-western Asia and Europe. They have been the prominent actors in the great drama of the history, and have

carried to their fullest growth all the elements of acting life with which our nature is endowed. They have perfected society and morals, and we learn from their literature and works of art the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy. In the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races, these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history, and it seems to be their mission to link all parts of the world together by the chains of civilisation, commerce, and religion. In a word, they represent the Aryan man in his historical character (Is this the message that the Aryan tribes, the Aryan people, the Aryan nations have been the most

decisive actors in the great drama of history? Have they perfected human society and morals? Do we learn from their literature and works the elements of science, the laws of art, and the principles of philosophy? Is this the message that in the continual struggle with each other and with Semitic and Turanian races these Aryan nations have become the rulers of history?). But while most of the members of the Aryan family followed this glorious path, the southern tribes were slowly migrating towards the mountains which gird in the north of India. After crossing the narrow pass of the Hindukush or the Himâlaya, they conquered or drove before them, as it

seems without much effort, the aboriginal inhabitants of the TransHimalayan countries. They took for their guides the principal rivers of northern India, and were led by them to new homes in their beautiful and fertile valleys.” ***** We get back to the issue of sources of information. In all standard books on history, on history of culture, on Indology published after 1859 we find all those facts presented here by Max Müller as referred to in the beginning of this chapter. On this fundament, Max Müller has integrated other perceptions on society and culture without any

critical check-up of the validity of the assertions. In none of the standard books on these subjects published before 1859, we find these facts presented by Max Müller. Therefore, we conclude that Max Müller has handed-down these facts for the first time in the literature on the Modern History, on Human Culture and on Indology. Thus, he is accountable for his sources. There was no mention of the Aryan-race prior to Max Müller. He was thus the discoverer or inventor of the Aryan-race as well. He did describe the physical features of the Aryans in comparison to the rest of humankind. The Aryans were tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired,

blue or grey-eyed. In 1859 photography was yet to be invented. When did he go to the land of Aryan-origin? When did he see “Aryans”? The land of Aryan-origin, so it is told by Max Müller, was to be Central-East Asia. It is handed-down that the Venetian Marco Polo spent long years in that area in the 13th century. He has written a lot on what he had seen and experienced. Why did he not see the Aryans, why did he not write on the Aryan-Race? We must find out how and when Max Müller discovered these facts. It is undeniable that he is accepted as an authority on all these facets of ancient “History”, on “Religions”, on

“Indology”, on “Philosophy” and on “Linguistics”. Even his claim to have acquired perfect command over the ancient Language called Sanskrit is also universally accepted. He is also accountable on this issue. A language does not travel. A language has to be transported by human beings. There are two ways. One travels to the land of that language, learns it and carries it to his land. Or one comes from that land and brings the language with him and also teaches it. We shall have to investigate how Sanskrit arrived in Europe and how European scholars of Sanskrit came to their knowledge of Sanskrit.

***** As indicated before, we are simpleminded persons. Though we are products of the universally prevailing “educational” system created and spread by European Christians, somehow we have retained our simplicity. We practice calling a spade a spade. And we are in search of knowledge. We are too simple-minded to be able to believe. We always want to know. If we do not understand, we ask questions. Our basic premise is:

“A good scientific theory should be explicable to a

barmaid.” We do not claim copy right for this wonderful and precise expression. This sentence is not ours. Had it been ours, we would not have claimed copy right any way. This sentence was formulated by a New Zealand-born physicist and chemist who became known as the father of nuclear physics. He is widely credited being the first "splitting the atom" in 1917 in a nuclear reaction between nitrogen and alpha particles, in which he also discovered (and named) the proton. If he could explicate his theories to a barmaid, we demand the same from all scholars in the humanities as well. We must demand from the

scholars of all subjects to explicate their findings in a simple language. He was also awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1908. However, we feel our New Zealand-born physicist and chemist should not have singled out the “barmaids” as less intelligent persons. “Barmaids” are not fools. We owe this sentence to Ernest Rutherford (1871 – 1937). We were unable to accept that Max Müller and his scholarly followers wanted us to believe that the “Aryans” were tall, strong, fair skinned, fair haired, blue or grey-eyed. Our obvious query was: How do they know? When did they discover them? Did the

“Aryans” ever exist? ***** We put two and two of the “world (hi)story” in written form together. We are struck by the fact that Moses is the first landmark. He introduced “The God”. “God” revealed the truths to him only. He and his followers, the later Jews, were content considering Moses exceptionally chosen by “God”. The followers of Moses considered themselves to be exceptionally fortunate being associated with him. Jesus Christ, a Jew, is the next landmark founding “Christianity”. Mohammed (was he a Jew, or a Christian or what?) founded the “Islam”. All three of them are

categorised to be of “Semitic origin”. The cultural heredity of these three landmarks determined the approach to life of the Europeans. European Christians felt inferior to the “Jews”. It is not handed-down that the Jews were keen to spread their religion. But we remember the terms “mission” and “jihad”. We won’t discuss just now, whether these campaigns were forays in disguise. A category called “race” to differentiate human beings was not yet coined. Nor the concepts of occupation and exploitation of foreign lands and people. These concepts were coined during the “Era of Vasco da Gama” only. We shall

have to search in these directions as well. It is undeniable that since around the last two centuries the world in all walks of life is being dominated by European Christians. They have given many names for this culture to cover the roots of this culture. We are puzzled by the names of this culture as Christian, occidental, European, industrial, western, postwar–, democratic, modern, humanistic, formed, solidarity–, leisure-time–, information–, risk–, media–, open, global, television–, Internet–, information–, interactive, fun-, media-, knowledge culture, etc. etc.. We have to raise many questions like:

why so many names are coined to characterize a single culture? Is it an expression of a special fantasy, special accuracy or does it only express embarrassment and helplessness; a search for identity; or a desperate attempt to veil the essential characteristics of this culture and to try to divert the focus to superficial changes caused by technological developments? What are the fundamentals of this society? We shall have to search for answers. Putting two and two together of the “Era of Vasco da Gama” we ascertain few other concepts beside “race” and “occupation and exploitation of foreign

lands and people” as well: “IndoGerman” Indo-Europeans, “Aryans”, “Indo-Aryans”, “affinities, similarities, kinships and families in languages”, “defining human beings in terms of outer physical features and relating these features to determine the human, cultural and social quality of them”, just to mention a few. All these extend the area of our search and re-searches, though it begins with the “curriculum Vitae” of Max Müller. ***** We are confronted with the remarkable fact that most of today’s “sciencesubjects” adding up to the “modern humanities” have emerged during the

“Era of Vasco da Gama”. Fact is also that never before we were exposed to the industrial complex of mindmanagement. “To make others believe” is the purpose. Today it is almost allcomprehensive and almost perfect. It is not that the “scientists” of our time have become cleverer and have packed their messages more slyly. No, that’s not the case. By the heavy load of comprehensive exposures, we are losing our ability to recognise manipulation more and more. This begins in the family. In the family, the “elders” possess the monopoly of power. First thing is to assert oneself first. It does not matter how and by which means. This principle of

exercising power is also practiced at schools, on jobs, in sub-cultures and becomes part and parcel of the entire culture. Technological innovations of mass-media play a major role. Nothing depends on truth. It is the plausibility and the created images count. All sellable fakes become thus truth. The logic is primitive but effective. People wouldn’t buy it if it were not true, would they? Have we not already forgotten the media reports on the “Gulf war” of the last century, “Kosovo- air strikes”, “Gulf war again, “Afghanistan – crusade”, “Libya” and “Syria”? And the intelligent bombshells enriched with uranium that identify the villains only? We wonder whether the prevailing

hypocrisy could be topped. The “dronewarfare” and its international legality earn close observations. We must not have to apologise because of these “provocative” sentences. They may appear to be provocative. The might-media-manipulation-industry deliberately overwhelms us with disjoined information. We may appear to be provocative due to our endeavour to put issues in coherence that is, as a matter of fact, all issues are coherent. By this method, we offer resistance against the might-media-manipulation-industry that constantly tries to reduce our memory. Gradually it is becoming less than that of the hard disc of our own computer. These manipulators of

opinions know very well how deeply the racial consciousness is rooted in this prevailing culture, and how to exploit this prejudice to camouflage conflicting issues. We apologise taking a little aside and look back into the vast literature in Vedic language and in the Sanskrit language. We have studied these issues meticulously. The results will be presented in due course. At present only this much. There are quite a few features and concepts, which do not occur, in the ancient literature in Bharatavarsa. For example: belief, religion, god, temple, race, caste, only to mention a few terms which have been

imported in “Indian” languages by means of projection operated by “ChristianEuropean-Scholars”. Race and caste are contributed by the Iberian occupants of foreign lands only. These are reasons to be sceptical when we read the lines written by Max Müller and all that goes with this writing. Therefore, to begin with, we are undertaking a thorough investigation not of his deliberations in writing. Before we get involved with his writings, we would like to get into his “Curriculum Vitae” in details to assess whether it is worth reading his writings. A detailed review of “Curriculum Vitae” of any person will show, whether, when,

where, for how long, how a person could have eventually acquired knowledge in a subject that he claims to know. A detailed review of “CurriculumVitae” of Max Müller will also reveal exemplarily the epub of his teachers, his compatriots, his cultural descendants, in short, the whole culture. We all know from experiences through the ages that social behaviour is socially inherited. Behaviour has to be learnt and internalized. We come back to our questions following our simple check-up of the text in the beginning of this chapter that was caused by the unusual layout of a “scholarly” Book: Why all these inaccuracies on the inner title page of

his book which almost amount to swindle? We take liberty to reproduce the inner page at the end of this chapter of a prologue and begin a long and toilsome journey in search of truths. We reject secondary sources on principle. We depend upon primary sources. We shall keep our eyes wide open to be able to judge not only:

CHAPTER 2

WHO IS MAX MÜLLER M.A.? His family heredity, childhood and early school days Max Müller is born in Dessau, in a small Duchy called Anhalt-Dessau, on December 6, 1823. He was not born as Max Müller. He is Friedrich Maximilian Müller. He changes his name rather late, at sometime in 1847 while staying in England. He marries in England much later. On the marriage testimony, he is registered as Frederick

Maximilian Müller. Why does he do this exercise with his name? Why did he try to conceal his identity as Friedrich Maximilian Müller? We do not know yet. We shall try to find out in due course. Anhalt-Dessau is a small, prosperous and progressive Duchy. So it is said. Until 1603 Anhalt-Dessau was ruled by the Prince of Anhalt-Zerbst, and thereafter Anhalt-Dessau was recreated, being raised to a duchy in 1807. It was located in the north-central Europe, south of Prussia, having Zerbst in between, and between the two “provinces” of Saxony. Territory wise the Duchy was about 630 square-

kilometres having a maximum 60,000 in population. Dessau was the administrative town having a population of about 3,000. Frederick Leopold IV succeeded Duke Leopold III in 1817. This is the phase not only in the “German” history when the “nobles” are systematically losing their might and economic hegemony leading to the rise of Capitalism in Europe and all that went and goes with it. Occupation of foreign lands, so-called Colonialism included. A land called Germany was not created yet. “Müller” is a traditional surname widely spread in Germany. The “Müllers” in Germany belonged to the lower strata of

the “commons” in the society. Traditionally the “Müllers” were grinders of corns and seeds of all sorts. Friedrich Maximilian’s parents Wilhelm and Adelheide Müller also gave birth to a daughter, Auguste, on 20. April 1822. Wilhelm Müller was the sixth of seven children of Christian Leopold and of Marie Leopoldine Müller. They were poor. Christian Leopold Müller was a tailor. He was often ill at stretches. Before Wilhelm Müller was three years old, all other children had expired. Christian Leopold Müller did not try to train Wilhelm as a tailor. In spite of his poverty, he sent his son to schools. He

wanted his only surviving son Wilhelm to prosper more in life by getting education. He lost his wife while Wilhelm was fourteen years old, in 1808. A year later, Christian Leopold Müller married the widow of a well-todo master-butcher, Marie Seelmann, so that he would be able to ensure his son Wilhelm a good education. So it is told. He succeeded. Wilhelm Müller could begin studying literature, history, and philology at the University in Berlin when he was eighteen, in 1812. We take note that Berlin is far off from Anhalt- Dessau and more expensive than the nearer off university at Leipzig. Six months later,

however, Wilhelm joined the Prussian army in the “War of Liberation” against Napoleon, who was retreating from his disastrous invasion of Russia. Within a year, Wilhelm Müller became a lieutenant at the age just over nineteen. On his tour of duty, he stayed in Brussels where he got involved in a love affair that ended badly. Wilhelm Müller resumed his studies at the University in Berlin in 1814. He completed his studies in 1817 there. While studying he discovered his affinity to cultural activities. He visited literary circles. He wrote also his own verses. He fell in love with the poetess Louise Hensel, who encouraged him in his

writer-career but did not return his affections and love. He had also joined the Berliner Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (Berlin Society for the German language). Thus he got the chance to travel to Greece, Egypt and the Middle East with the Prussian chamberlain Baron Sack. Unfortunately, because of the plague in Constantinople they stopped off in Italy. Around Easter, he parted from Baron Sack because he wanted to stay on in Italy, went to Naples and spent the summer in Rome. On his return from Italy, he was appointed as a teacher of classic languages at Dessau in 1818. Then he took up the job of an assistant librarian

in the ducal library in Dessau. A year later, he became a librarian of the small Duchy having a population of maximum 60,000 as we remember. As a librarian, however, he became a part of the administration of the Duchy though on the bottom line to begin with. He was then twenty-five. Wilhelm Müller, being the son of a poor tailor, thus arrived at the threshold of the entry to the “high society” of AnhaltDessau. He made friends in circles engaged in cultural activities also outside Anhalt-Dessau. Franz Schubert will set two of his verses to music: Die Winterreise (The winter trip) and Die schöne Müllerin (The miller's beautiful

wife). These two songs are played even today. Max Müller will proudly mention this in his Auld Lang Syne, published by Longmans, Green, and Co., London and Bombay in 1898 (p.42), i.e. two years before his death. Auld Lang Syne is one of our primary sources to reconstruct the real life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. In 1821 Wilhelm Müller, when he was 27 years old, entered into a love-match marriage with Adelheid Basedow. She was then 21 years old. Adelheid belonged to a more prominent family, a few ladder higher in the ranking of social-prestige-scale than Wilhelm, in Anhalt-Dessau. The family Basedow did

not approve this love-marriage. The newly married couple got thus socially isolated. Adelheid was granddaughter of Johann Bernard Basedow (1723-1790). He was born at Hamburg in 1723, as the son of a barber and wigmaker. However, we do not know how, he managed to come to Leipzig as a student of theology, but gave himself up entirely to the study of philology, i.e. classic-languages. In 1752 he wrote a thesis: "On the best and hitherto unknown method of teaching children of noblemen", and obtained the degree of Master of Arts from the University at Kiel in the northern part of present Germany. Why

at Kiel and not at Leipzig, we do not know. The documents kept in the archives are comparatively rather meagre. He was not that important personality as Max Müller will proudly refer to Johann Bernard Basedow after hundred and eighty years in his Auld Lang Syne and in his My Autobiography published by Longmans, Green, and Co., London and Bombay. Johann Bernard Basedow evolved to a “pedagogic reformer”. The Duke of Anhalt-Dessau, Wilhelm Leopold III welcomed him to implement his pedagogic ideas in his small Duchy. In 1774 Johann Bernard Basedow was permitted to set up a school, called

Philanthropinum, in Anhalt-Dessau. “Philanthropinum” is derived from Greek and means “friend of mankind”. As simple-minded persons, we do not quite comprehend this “pedagogic reform”. We consider only facts and facts behind the facts. And, these are these. The school opened in December 1774. The motto was, so it is said, "everything according to nature". Rich and poor were to be educated together. The curriculum was practically-based and conducted in German (rather than Latin or Greek), handicrafts were taught, there was an emphasis on games and physical exercise, and school uniform was made simple and more comfortable, so it is

handed-down. The facts behind these facts are: The school was open to the children of nobles only. Yet the performances of his first pupils profoundly impressed observers. However, Johann Bernard Basedow’s heavy drinking and emotional outbursts drove away the best teachers from Philanthropinum. In 1784 Johann Bernard Basedow disconnected himself from the school, the Philanthropinum, in Anhalt-Dessau. Adelheid’s father Ludwig Basedow (1774 – 1835) studied law at Frankfurt University. He returned to AnhaltDessau and joined 1807 the AnhaltDessau-Administration. In 1814, he then

joined the Law Administration of Prussia. Anhalt-Dessau and Prussia were then having Tax disputes. Ludwig Basedow found a mutually accepted solution. Thereafter he got the job of the Head of the Administration of the small Duchy Anhalt-Dessau, still having a population of about maximum 60,000. He was later raised to the title of the lowest ranking heritable noble as Ludwig von Basedow in 1833, only two years before he expired in 1835. Adelheid could not enjoy the social privileges of eventually being Adelheid von Basedow unlike her two elder brothers. As we recall, she had married Wilhelm Müller in 1821, long before

her father was raised to the nobles in 1833. None the less, she belonged to a well to do bourgeois family in AnhaltDessau, already a bourgeois in the third generation. She was socially marginalized when she married Wilhelm Müller, who was just on the threshold of climbing the ladder to the class of the bourgeois, and that against the approval of her family. Being a librarian of the Duchy Wilhelm Müller became a “Hofrat”, a title at the bottom line of a higher carrier-scale of Anhalt-Dessau administration. But he was challenged to excel. Adelheid was proud and ambitious. She pushed him. We know nothing about the education of

Adelheid. She encouraged Wilhelm Müller to establish himself as a poet and as a writer and did everything she could to help her husband. Wilhelm Müller started impressively. He undertook many cultural trips together with Adelheid whenever he found a chance in his leisure times being a librarian. This was absolutely necessary to getting known in cultural circles outside Anhalt-Dessau. Wilhelm Müller prospered. But this exercise was strenuous and exhausting as well. He would have probably become a part of the “society” in AnhaltDessau as a poet and as a writer. As ill luck would have it, Wilhelm Müller expired while he was just on the verge

of becoming a celebrated personality as a poet and as a writer. In July, 1827 Wilhelm Müller fell ill. Five days later, after he fell ill, he died of an attack in his sleep, just before his thirty-third birthday. Adelheid Müller was then 27 years old, Auguste 5 and Friedrich Maximilian 3 and a half. His untimely death was surrounded by rumours of suicide or murder that persisted over the years which were not favourable for the mental balance and growth of the half-orphan Auguste and Friedrich Maximilian. More over the family was being left behind in poverty without any material resources. These are the hard facts in regard to the

family and social background of Friedrich Maximilian when he is three and half years old. A lot of myths have been written and printed on and about Friedrich Maximilian Müller by Max Müller, by his British wife Georgina Max Müller, and by his son W. G. Max Müller. We take liberty of a break to look a little ahead. We reproduce here an exemplary paragraph on the family background of Friedrich Maximilian Müller which has remained undisputed as yet: “Max Müller's mother was Adelheid, elder daughter of President von Basedow, Prime Minister of the Duchy of Dessau. She was very small,

but very beautiful, clever and lively, and had a fine contralto voice; and it was from her that Max Müller inherited his intense love of music. Frau Hofrathin Müller was a highly cultivated woman, understanding English, French, and Italian perfectly. She was a woman of an eager, even passionate temperament, and her children evidently suffered early from this, as Wilhelm Müller's letters are full of warnings to her not to punish too severely, and not to expect too much from her children (babies of four and five when their father died). Her father, President von Basedow, was himself the son of a man famous in Germany in his day,

the pedagogue Basedow, the forerunner of Pestalozzi and Frobel.“ This we read in: THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE FRIEDRICH MAX MÜLLER, EDITED BY HIS WIFE, in

two volumes, here in volume I, Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Parternoster Row, London, New York and Bombay 1902 by Georgina Max Müller. She is Georgina Adelaide Grenfell, born 1835, marries Friedrich Maximilian Müller in 1859 and becomes Georgina Max Müller. We have quoted the second paragraph of the very first chapter written by Georgina Max Müller. We have taken a note that the same publisher that brought

out the volumes “Auld Lang Syne” as well as “My Autobiography” by Max Müller has printed these volumes by Georgina Max Müller. “My Autobiography” by Max Müller is another primary source and those two volumes by Georgina Max Müller are our second graded primary source. In our judgement, whatever Georgina Max Müller could write about the life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller came from Max Müller or from her own wishful phantasm. In her volumes, she has included complementary documents to Auld Lang Syne and to My Autobiography by Max Müller. We shall have to judge the quality of these

documents in due course. ***** We get back to the childhood and early school days of Friedrich Maximilian at Dessau. Adelheid has to vacate their common home after the sudden death of Wilhelm Müller. She is unable to pay the rent. She first takes refuge in the house of her parents. But very soon she shifts to a ground floor flat in a tiny house as Wilhelm Müller did not leave behind any cash amount or property for his widow and for the two little kids. She has to manage with a meagre pension granted by the Duke of AnhaltDessau. It is the yearly sum of 100 thalers, as long as she remains a widow

and until her son has completed his twenty-first year. And thereafter she was to be entitled to draw the sum of fifty thalers for the rest of her life. Here we get an indication of the minimum sum needed for a single person to survive at that period, 50 thalers per annum. In the archives we are unable find any hints why Adelheid Müller and her two helpless kids do not continue to stay with her affluent parents. We are unable to judge what happens in those days and months. We assume that Adelheid was sidelined or even ostracized by her parental family due to her love-marriage with Wilhelm Müller. She might have been too proud to ask for material

support either from her parents, or from the affluent stepmother of Wilhelm Müller. There are no indications that these two affluent families ever communicated with each other. It is handed-down that Adelheid had earned a reputation of being a good singer with a sweet voice. But she can neither earn additional funds for the family by singing, nor can she spare time to seek an occupation. She is solely dedicated to her two children. She is proud and brave. She does not move in the so-called society. But she sends her children regularly visiting both the families. She does not accompany them. The children cling to

the mother. And the mother clings to the children. In spite of her social isolation and of her extreme poverty Adelheid has been able to educate the kids sending both Auguste and Friedrich Maximilian to schools. There are however indications that a few friends of late Wilhelm Müller came forward to assist her in financial or other crisis now and then, and not her parents, not her brothers, not her well-to-do stepmotherin-law. ***** The childhood of Friedrich Maximilian is hard, sad and uneventful. He suffers from chronic headaches from the very childhood till he will be 37 years old.

We are unable to judge finally whether Friedrich Maximilian picks up this precarious state of his health before or after the early death of his father. It is doubtless that the life of Friedrich Maximilian changes radically caused by the sudden death of his father. Max Müller will write two years before his death in his “My Autobiography. A Fragment”, published after his death in 1900 with a preface of his son W. G. Max Müller in the same publishing house as mentioned above, on the childhood of Friedrich Maximilian. There we read (p. 53): “My childhood at home was often very sad. My mother, who was left a

widow at twenty-eight with two children, my sister and myself, was heart-broken. The few years of her married life had been most bright and brilliant. My father was a rising poet, ... Contemporaries and friends of father, particularly Baron Simolin, a very intimate friend, who spent the Christmas of 1825 in our house, ... Anyhow, my father, whose salary was minute, seems to have been able to enjoy the few years of his married life in great comfort. The thought of saving money, however, seems never to have entered his poetical mind, and after the sudden death, due to paralysis of the heart, it was found that hardly any provision had been

made for his family. Even the life insurance, which is obligatory on every civil servant, and the pension granted by the duke, gave my mother but a very small income, fabulously small, when one considers that she had to bring up two children on it. It has been a riddle to me ever since how she was able to do it.” Friedrich Maximilian is marked by poverty from his early childhood. He is also socially isolated between two more or less affluent families. His mother is disinherited from her parental family for all practical purposes. We do not find any indication whether Adelheid Müller ever inherited her legitimate portion of

her parental holdings and wealth. All these must have been depressing also for Friedrich Maximilian. None the less, “Max Müller” will write later in his autobiography (p. 53 ff): “On my mother’s side my relatives were more civilized, and they had but little social intercourse with my grandmother and her relatives. My mother’s father was von Basedow, the president, that is Prime Minister of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau, a position in which he was succeeded by his oldest son, my uncle. He was the first man in the town; the Duke and he really ruled the Duchy exactly as they pleased. ... My grandfather’s

father again was the famous reformer of public education in Germany. He (1723–1790) ... migrated to Dessau, to become the founder of the ‘Philanthropinum’, and at the same time the path-breaker for men such as Pestalozzi (1746-1827) and Froebel (1782-1852). ...I was often told that I took after my mother’s family, whatever that may mean, and this was certainly the case in outward appearance, though I hope not in temper. My great-grandfather, the Pedagogue as he was called, was a friend of Goethe’s, and is mentioned in his poems.” *****

The life of Friedrich Maximilian would have taken a different course if Adelheid could have left Dessau after the sudden death of her husband, Wilhelm Müller. But there is no way out. He has to live with his mother and sister in a tiny ground floor flat in a tiny house at Dessau, which is then a small town having a population of about 3,000. Adelheid is now 27 years old. She never thought of marriage again. She decides to live for her children only. She does her best looking after that both the kids do well at schools. She knows that education was the only way out, at least for Friedrich Maximilian, to do well, to prosper in life.

It is not easy for Friedrich Maximilian in the school. Dessau is a small town. His schoolmates and the teachers know all about his deprivations. He is half orphan, isolated from both of the family lines, poor, a “mummy’s darling” and partly disable being regularly attacked by severe headaches. There are very little positive aspects in his life to talk about with his schoolmates. There are only limited options left for him not to fall into depression: excel in learning, excel in sports, and learn talking on imaginative remote themes, conceived or exaggerated. We have not found any indication that Friedrich Maximilian ever participated

in any sport activities. Due to his chronic headaches, he cannot excel in learning either. He practices talking entertainingly. To begin with glorifying the fame of his father that is always a theme at home also and conceiving fantastic stories. Max Müller will describe this period of Friedrich Maximilian’s life at Dessau and his situation there in “My Autobiography” (p. 90), written, as mentioned, at the age of around 75, far better than we ever could have done going through historical records in the archives: “The more I think about that distant, now very distant past, the more I feel

how, without being aware of it, my whole character was formed by it. The unspoiled primitiveness of life at Dessau as it was when I was at school there till the age of twelve would be extremely difficult to describe it in all its details. Everybody seemed to know everybody, and everything about everybody. Everybody knew that he was watched, and gossip, in the best sense of the word, ruled supreme in the little town. Gossip was in fact, public opinion with all its good and bad features. Still the result was that no one could afford to lose caste, and that everybody behaved as well as he could.” As already indicated, several adverse

factors could have lead Friedrich Maximilian to a traumatic life which he has to tackle from the very early childhood: we recall, the sudden death of his father, negligence by families of both sides, depressions of Adelheid, their social isolation, Adelheid’s ambitions, poverty and his severe migraines. Friedrich Maximilian has to cope with the adverse situation and to develop strategies. He makes the best of it. His basic personality is being set accordingly. He does it in his own way. We shall come along to “his way” in due courses. Presently we read in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller on the early childhood of Friedrich Maximilian (p. 52 - 57):

“My sister and I were always terrified when we were sent to visit her, for with her dishevelled grey hair, her thin white face, and her piercing eyes, she was to us the old grandmother or the witch of Grimm’s stories; and the language she used was such that, if we repeated at home, we were severely reprimanded. She knew very little about my father, but her memory about her first husband and about her own youth and childhood was very clear, though not always edifying. Her stories about ghosts, witches, ogres, knickers, and the whole of that race were certainly enough to frighten a child and some of them clung to me for a very long

time, ... On my mother’s side my relations, who were all high in the public service, my grandfather, as I said, being the Duke’s chief minister, made life more easy and pleasant b for us; but for many years my mother never went into society, and our society consisted of members of our own family only. All I remember of my mother at that time was that she took her two children day after day to the beautiful Gottesacker (God’s Acre), where she stood for hours at our father’s grave, and sobbed and cried. ... At home the atmosphere was certainly depressing to a boy. I heard and thought more about death than about life, though I knew little of

course of what life or death meant. I had but few pleasures, and my chief happiness was to be with my mother, I shared her grief without understanding much about it. She was passionately devoted to her children and I was passionately fond of her. What there was left of life to her, she gave it to us, she lived for us only, and tried very hard not to deprive our childhood of all brightness. She was certainly most beautiful, and quite different from all other ladies at Dessau, not only in the eyes of her son, but it seemed to me, of everybody. ... As far as I can recollect, I was never so happy as when I could be with her. She read so

much to us that I was quite satisfied, and saw perhaps less of my young friends than I ought. When my mother said she wished to die, and to be with our father, I feel sure that my sister and I were only anxious that she should take us with her, for there were few golden chains that bound us as yet to this life.” Is it not a morbid atmosphere for children? This atmosphere will continue until Friedrich Maximilian becomes 12 years old. Thereafter he will be sent to a school at Leipzig. How he fares in the school in Dessau? There are no significant indications. Friedrich Maximilian enters the “Gymnasium”

(High School) at Dessau when he is six years old. “Gymnasiums” then had 13 classes. Georgina Max Müller reports (p. 6) in her book: “His school reports were not remarkable, and certainly at that time he gave little evidence of the power that was in him. ‘Writing bad’ was the almost invariable report, and in later years he often lamented the small pains taken by the writing master to improve it.” We do not know more about the real child-life of Friedrich Maximilian at Dessau that constituted his basic personality. We assume, poverty and his migraine have played an important role

in his basic personality, in his childhood and in his early school days. A lot has been published on “Max Müller” later. His biographers, including his wife, Georgina Max Müller, and his son, W. G. Max Müller, have totally left out the background that constituted his basic personality. It has even been totally ignored that there is the chapter two in the “My Autobiography” which is titled “Childhood at Dessau”, p. 45 – 94. There we read in the pages 65 ff memorizing the school life of Friedrich Maximilian at Dessau: “I remember a number of small events in my school-life at Dessau ...

The influence which music exercised on my mind ... My work at school and at home was not too heavy; I was fond of it and very fond of books. ... Paper was so dear that one had to be very sparing in its use. Every margin and cover was scribbled over before it was thrown away, and I fest often so happened by the scarcity of paper that I gladly accepted a set of copybooks instead of any other present that I might have asked for on my birthday or at Christmas. I am sorry to say I have had to suffer all my life from the inefficiency of our writing master or may be from the fact that my thoughts were too quick for my pen. In other subjects I did

well, but though I was among the first in each class, I was by no means cleverer than other boys. ... I feel sure I could have done a great deal more at school than I did, but it was partly my music and partly my incessant headaches that interfered with my school work. ... I was fortunate at school. I could hold my own with the boys, and as to the masters, several of them had known my father or had been his pupils, and they took a personal interest in me. I remember more particularly one young master who was very kind to me, and took me home for private lessons and for giving me some good advice.”

There is not much more about Friedrich Maximilian’s real childhood in the chapter “Childhood at Dessau”. Information on his childhood and on his school life at Dessau is unsystematically touched in this chapter now and then. This scattered information is packed between Max Müller’s uncalled for reflections on “God and the world”; on the Jews in Anhalt-Dessau and on persons, he met during the years of his life that have nothing to do with Friedrich Maximilian’s “Childhood at Dessau”. It is an unsystematic narration full of phantasm than an autobiography describing his childhood. We have taken a note of this aspect in his writings in “My Autobiography” and the volumes

of “Auld Lang Syne” and we shall keep our eyes wide open. We put together the scattered information in pages chronologically. Max Müller remembers Friedrich Maximilian’s school days in his autobiography (p. 62– 63): “At school our religious teaching was chiefly historical and moral. ... Some, by no means all, children of Roman Catholic and Jewish parents were allowed to be absent from religious lessons. ... If Jews or Roman Catholics wished for any special religious instructions it was given by their own priests or Rabbis, and was given without any interference on the

part of the Government. ... Thus we grew up from our earliest youth, being taught to look upon Christianity as an historical fact, on Christ and on His disciples as historical characters, on the Old and New Testaments as real historical books. Though we did not understand as yet the deeper meaning of Christ and of His words, we had at least nothing to unlearn in later times ...“ His memories of the childhood of Friedrich Maximilian written a little before he will die are yet remarkable. We find on pages 67-69 of his autobiography: “A large number of Jews had been

received at Dessau by a former duke; ...he stipulated that they should only settle in certain streets. These streets were by no means the worst streets of the town; on the contrary, they showed greater comfort and hardly any of the squalor which disgraced the Jewish quarters in other towns in Germany. As children we were brought up without any prejudice against the Jews, though we had, no doubt, a certain feeling that they were tolerated only, and were not quite on the same level with ourselves. We also felt the religious difficulty sometimes very strongly. Were the Jews not the murderers of Christ? And had they not said: ‘the blood be on us and on

our children’? ...I knew several Jewish families, and received much kindness from them as a boy. Many of these families were wealthy, but they never displayed their wealth, and in consequence excited no envy. All that is changed now. The children of the Jews who formerly lived in a very quiet style at Dessau, now occupy the best houses, indulge in most expensive tastes, and try in every way to outshine their non-Jewish neighbours. They buy themselves, and, when they can, stipulate for stars and orders as rewards for successful financial operations, carried out with the money of princely personages. Hence the

revulsion of feeling all over Germany, or what is called Anti-Semitism, which has assumed not only a social, but also a political significance. I doubt whether there is anything religious in it, as there was when we were boys. ...One cannot blame the Jews or any other speculator for using their opportunities, but they must not complain either if they excite envy, and if that envy assumes in the end a dangerous character.” On page 77 ff we read: “The very idea of death never came near me till my grandfather died (1835), but even then I was only about twelve years old, and though I

had seen much of him, particularly during the years that my mother lived again in his house, yet he was too old to take much share in his grandchildren’s amusements. ...He made no secret that he cared more for the son of his son who was the heir, and was to perpetuate the name of Basedow, than for the son of his daughter.” As indicated earlier Adelheid is keen maintaining her social duties. She sends her children to visit both families. She does not visit them. What Max Müller lets us know in the following subsentence is puzzling: “particularly during the years that my mother lived

again in his house”. We keep this small puzzle in mind. When Friedrich Maximilan has just passed twelve, Adelheid sends him to one Professor Carus at Leipzig, a friend of late Wilhelm Müller. It seems, Adelheid loses control over him and feels that he needed the guidance of a male authority. So it is handed-down. Professor Carus admits him to the best school at Leipzig. His son Victor is of the same age and visits the same school. We turn again to Max Müller‘s autobiography, to the chapter “Childhood at Dessau”, p. 79: “As far back as I can remember I was

a martyr to headaches. No doctor could help me, no one seemed to know the cause. It was a migraine, and though I watched carefully I could not trace it to any fault of mine. The idea that it came from overwork was certainly untrue. It came and went, and if it was one day on the right side it was always the next time on the left, even though I was free from it sometimes for a week or a fortnight, or even longer. It was strange also that it seldom lasted beyond one day, and that I always felt particularly strong and well the day after I had been prostrate. For prostrate I was, and generally quite unable to do anything. I had to lie down and try to

sleep. After a good sleep I was well, but when the pain had been very bad I found that sometimes the very skin of my forehead had peeled off. In this way I often lost two or three days in a week and as my work had to be done somehow, it was often done anyhow, and I was scolded and punished, really without any fault of mine own.” All in all, the child-life of Friedrich Maximilian at Dessau has been depressive which demanded strategies to stand the adversities he faces. Max Müller closes this chapter in his Autobiography with the words, p. 92/93: “My narrow Dessau views became a little widened when I went to school

at Leipzig; still more when I spent two years and a half at the University of Leipzig, and afterwards at Berlin. Still, during all this time I saw but little of what is called society, I only knew of people whom I loved and of people whom I disliked. There was no room as yet for indifferent people, whom one tolerates and is civil to without caring whether one sees them again or not. Of the simplest duties of society also I was completely ignorant. No one ever told me what to say and what to do or what not to say and what not to do. What I felt I said, what I thought right I did. There was, in fact, in my small native town very little that could be called society.

***** We have put together the factors that engraved the basic personality of Friedrich Maximilian at Anhalt-Dessau mostly in the words written by Max Müller. We have not commented or analysed contradictions in them or on Friedrich Maximilian’s internalized strategies to compensate his agonies experienced in child-life, nor on repressions exercised by social facts. We feel we should not conceal our conclusions before we close this chapter, i.e. “Childhood at Dessau” as it has been chaptered by Max Müller. As mentioned earlier, the surname Müller is extremely frequent all over

Germany. Friedrich Maximilian does not feel comfortable to be a “Müller”. His paternal grandfather was a poor tailor. His grandfather marries a relatively rich widow of a master butcher to provide education for his son Wilhelm, the only child alive out of seven children. Well, a butcher become quite well to do in terms of money, but is not considered to be a respected occupation in Dessau or elsewhere either. As a child, he identifies more with the family of his mother and glorifies “achievements” of his father. Thus, he represses the background of being a “Müller” and all that goes with it. We recall that Wilhelm Müller dies early at

the age of 33. He becomes a schoolteacher when he passed his 25. Shortly later, he becomes the librarian of the small Duchy Anhalt-Dessau. He does not have much time to excel as a writer and a poet. Yet we find the following lines (Autobiography, p. 47-48) in the beginning pages of the same chapter “Childhood at Dessau”. “There is curious race of people, who, as soon as a man of any note dies, are ready to found anything for him – a monument, a picture, a school, a prize, a society – to keep alive his memory. Of course societies want presidents, members of council, committees, secretaries &c., and at last, subscriptions also. Thus it has

happened that the name of founder (Gründer) has assumed particularly in Germany, a perfume by no means sweet. Those who are asked to subscribe to such testimonials know how disagreeable it is to decline to give at least their name, deeply as they feel that in giving it they are offending against the rules of historical perspective. I should not say that my father was one of the great poets of Germany, though Heine, no mean critic, declared that he placed his lyric poetry next to that of Goethe. ... His poems became popular in the true sense of the word, and there are some which the people in the street sing even now without

being aware of the name of their author. Schubert’s compositions also have contributed much to the wide popularity of his Schöne Müllerin and his Winterreise, ... In the company of Mendelsohn, the philosopher and of F. Schneider, the composer, a monument of my father in the principal street of his native town, and before the school in which he had been a pupil and a teacher, could hardly seen out of place.” Well, it is more than a “Freudian slip”, it is more than “going the extra mile”; it is more than “bigger, nicer, better”. We keep in mind; whatever we know about the childhood of Friedrich Maximilian,

we know a little from the archives, from “My Autobiography” written by Max Müller in 1898–99, a little before he dies and those two volumes written by Georgina Max Müller. Usually narrated facts as memories are not checked, if it is palatably presented. We do read carefully and check published memories. Max Müller obviously commanded over this art of telling tales. In Germany, there is an old proverb: “Kein Meister ist vom Himmel gefallen” (No master falls from Heaven). He seems to have learnt this art right from his very childhood. Exchange of surname is possible today. At that time at Dessau Friedrich

Maximilian does not know that he will later become Max Müller. If we are ready to follow Max Müller, then Friedrich Maximilian has compensated his being a “Müller” in his own way. He identifies with the family of his mother in spite of severe neglects. Max Müller refers back to the grandfather of his mother, though she is born ten years after her grandfather had expired. The reason is simple. Johann Bernhard Basedow (1724 –1790) was a known as an educationist. Johann Bernhard Basedow‘s descendants, the grandfather and granduncle of Friedrich Maximilian are not such known personalities. Max Müller tells little about his own

grandfather Ludwig Basedow (1774 – 1835). Naturally, he is proud that his grandfather earned a heritable title of a noble “Von” as late as in 1833, when Friedrich Maximilian was just ten years old. Max Müller does not tell us anything about Friedrich Maximilian‘s relationship with his uncle either. He tells us only that (p. 53): “On my mother’s side my relatives were more civilized, and they had but little social intercourse with my grandmother and her relatives. My mother’s father was von Basedow, the president, that is Prime Minister of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau, a position in which he was succeeded

by his oldest son, my uncle.” Well. Anhalt-Dessau was one of the smallest Duchies neighbouring Prussia having a population of at most 60,000 only. His mother’s father, “von Basedow”, was not “the president, that is Prime Minister of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau” but simply the head administrator. In the memory of Max Müller the head administrator of one of the smallest Duchies in Germany becomes the “Prime Minister of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau.” On page 56 he wants us to note: “My mother’s relations, who were all high in the public service, my grandfather, as I said, being the Duke’s chief Minister,

made life more easy and pleasant for us; but for many years my mother never went into society, and our society consisted of members of our own family only.” Is it not amazing that Max Müller does not even indicate that his mother, his sister and he himself has just been neglected by his “mother’s relations”? Remembering his childhood at Dessau Max Müller fails to develop a sense of looking at realities. As Friedrich Maximilian he obviously suffered from poverty, but is unable to comprehend the cause of the poverty. Though, as Friedrich Maximilian, he was not considered to be a part of his “mother’s relations, who were all high in the

public service”, he wishes to have belonged to “Basedows” while writing his “Autobiography”. In his fantasy, he is actually a “von Basedow”, almost a “noble”. In his wishful thinking he is nearer to the nobles rather than being a “Müller”. To what extent he identified himself with the Basedows is reflected in his remark (p. 53): “I was often told that I took after my mother’s family, whatever that may mean, and this was certainly the case in outward appearance, though I hope not in temper.” Almost at the end of this chapter of ours, we repeat a quote from “My Autobiography”:

“My childhood at home was often very sad. My mother, who was left a widow at twenty-eight with two children, my sister and myself, was heart-broken. The few years of her married life had been most bright and brilliant. My father was a rising poet, ... Contemporaries and friends of father, particularly Baron Simolin, a very intimate friend, who spent the Christmas of 1825 in our house.” In 1825, Friedrich Maximilian is two years old. How can Max Müller remember in 1898 that “Baron Simolin, a very intimate friend”, had “spent the Christmas of 1825 in our house”? We apologise taking a little aside and

looking a little ahead. Neither Max Müller nor Friedrich Maximilian in his letters to his mother has ever mentioned this Baron Simolin with his first name. Simolins are known as “Freiherren” since the 17th Century. There are many “Simolins”, having at least three lineages. Max Müller uses the technique to relate himself to many celebrated surnames and conceals the first names, as we shall see also later. It is a hollow technique to suggest that he came along with almost all celebrated persons of his time. We are unable to ascertain whether Max Müller has been unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality or Friedrich

Maximilian had evolved systematically to a Max Müller as we are experiencing by his memories on the life of Friedrich Maximilian which are far from truths. We shall have to look into evidences. We close this chapter here ascertaining that all along his schools life in Dessau Friedrich Maximilian could not excel due to his poverty, due to his chronic headaches, due to his humble social background and due to his social deprivations. He tried to compensate his sufferings and deprivations by creating daydreams, inventing fantastic episodes, developing aspirations that could not be related to the reality. These ways of compensations are not unusual.

CHAPTER 3

FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN’S SCHOOL DAYS AT LEIPZIG We recall Adelheid Müller is in search of a masculine guidance for Friedrich Maximilian. He is isolated in Dessau. The members of her parental family do not care for him, not even the male members. Ultimately, she finds a solution when he is 12 years old. A friend of late Wilhelm Müller, one Professor Carus, at Leipzig is ready to take care for Friedrich Maximilian. His

son Victor is of the same age. Together they attend the best school at Leipzig, the Nicolai-Schule. They become friends. Leipzig is about 60 km away from Dessau. On his school days at Leipzig, there is only one relatively reliable source of information: Max Müller. There are no records kept in the archives. The source Georgina Max Müller is inadequate. As referred in the last chapter she marries Friedrich Maximilian Müller in the 1859. She is then 24 years old. She belonged to a copper-smelter and merchant family in the British Kingdom. Her educational background is unknown. Both of her

volumes include in the main, letters written in German, translated into English. We are unable to ascertain whether she ever learnt German. She devotes in her book approximately 6 pages to this life period of Friedrich Maximilian Müller under headings: “Nicolai School Leipzig”, “Dr. Carus”, “Music”, “Letters to his Mother” and “Examination at Zerbst”. She does not care for chronology. She quotes letters without referring to dates. Amongst them, there are also six letters of Friedrich Maximilian to his mother. These letters are translated into English from German original. We do not know by whom. We know only that the diction,

the style in English, is almost that of an English scholar and not of a schoolboy. We take liberty to quote her here only once. We refrain from our comments. Georgina Max Müller: “Before leaving the house of Dr. Carus, Max writes to his mother:— Translation. 'When I remember the time that I first sent you my birthday greetings from Leipzig, and now see that this period of life is nearly over. I must gratefully acknowledge how good God has been to us in various ways, and has given us many compensations. But above all, how grateful we should be that God has preserved you, our dear

mother, to us, to sweeten for us all that is bitter, to reward all effort. How I rejoice over next year, in which a new existence opens for me, a higher aim in life floats before me, and I shall have you both with me. I cannot tell you how I rejoice at the thought of this time, when I must take another step forwards, and shall again, at all events for a time, be with my own people.'” The chapter III of “My Autobiography” by Max Müller comprises the pages 95 111. On page 95 we read: “It was certainly a poor kind of armour in which I set out of Dessau. My mother, devoted as she was to me,

had judged rightly that it was best for me to be with other boys and under the supervision of a man. I had been somewhat spoiled by her passionate love, and also by her passionate severity in correcting the ordinary naughtiness of a boy. So having risen from form to form in the school at Dessau, I was sent, at the age of twelve, to Leipzig, to live in the house of Professor Carus and attend the famous Nicolai-Schule with his son, who was of the same age as myself and who likewise wanted a companion. It was thought that there would be a certain emulation between us, and so, no doubt there was, though we always remained the best

friends. The house in which we lived stood in a garden and was really an orthopaedic institution for girls.” It is a radical break in Friedrich Maximilian’s early life. For the first time in his life, he lives in an affluent household. In the whole chapter, Max Müller does not give any account of the differences of his school life at Dessau and at Leipzig. He does not disclose the personal feelings of Friedrich Maximilian being away from his mother and sister in a new so far unknown household. We do not know whether he makes friends in the new school or in the new locality. Had there been any financial

arrangements between Professor Carus and his mother? Does he get pocket money? Does he maintain the same standard like Victor in all material aspects? We do not know. Max Müller does not tell us. Instead, he presents a rather academic lecture on public schools in Germany. We are inclined to put a question mark here. We have doubts whether Friedrich Maximilian would have given the same expressions as Max Müller lets us know in the “My Autobiography”. On page 97 we read: “There were two good public schools at Leipzig, the Nicolai School and the Thomas School. There was plenty of espirt de corps in them and often

when the boys met it showed itself not only in words but in blows, and the discussion on merits of their schools were often continued in later life. I was very fortunate in being sent to the Nicolai School, under Dr. Nobbe as head master. He was at the same time Professor at the University of Leipzig and is well known in England also as the editor of Cicero. He was very proud that his school counted Leibniz among its former pupils. He was a classical scholar of the old school. During the last three years of our school life we had to write plenty of Latin and Greek verse, and were taught to speak Latin. The speaking of Latin came readily enough, but the

verses never attained a very high level. Besides Nobbe we had Forbiger, well known by his books on ancient geography, and Palm, editor of the same Greek Dictionary which, in the hands of Dr. Liddell, has reached the highest perfection. Then there was Funkhänel, known beyond Germany by his edition of the Orations of Demosthenes, and his studies on Greek orators.” It continues just like this. Then on p. 99 and 100, we read: “We certainly did very well in Greek and Latin, and read a number of classical texts, not only critically at school, but also cursorily at home,

having to give a weekly account of what we had thus read by ourselves. I liked my classics, and yet I could not help feeling that there was a certain exaggeration in the way in which every one of them was spoken of by our teachers, nay, that as compared to German poets and prose writers they were somewhat overpraised. Still, it would have been very conceited not to admire what our masters admired, and as in duty bound we went into the usual raptures about Homer and Sophocles, about Horace and Cicero.” Later on page 102, we encounter just a touch of a personal account. (highlighted by us):

“I enjoyed my work at school very much, and I seem to have passed rapidly from class to class. I frequently received prizes both in money and in books, but I see a warning attached to some of them that I ought not to be conceited, which probably meant no more than that I should not show when I was pleased with my successes. At least I do not know what I could have been conceited about. What I feel about my learning at school is that it was entirely passive. I acquired knowledge such as it was presented to me. I did not doubt whatever my teacher taught me, I did not, as far as

I can recollect, work up any subject by myself. I find only one paper of mine of that early time, and, curiously enough, it was on mythology; but it contains no inkling of comparative mythology, but simply a chronological arrangement of the sources from which we draw our knowledge of Greek mythology. I see also from some old papers, that I began to write poetry and that twice or thrice I was chosen at great festivities to recite poems written by myself. In the year 1839 three hundred years had passed since Luther preached at Leipzig in the Church of St. Nicolai, and the tercentenary of this event was

celebrated all over Germany. My poem was selected for recitation at a large meeting of the friends of our school and notables of the town, and I had to recite it, not without fear and trembling.I was then sixteen years of age. In the next year, 1840, Leipzig celebrated the invention of printing in 1440. It was on this occasion that Mendelssohn wrote his famous Hymn of Praise. I formed part of the chorus, and I well remember the magnificent effect which the music produced in the Church of St. Thomas. Again a poem of mine was selected, and I had to recite it at a large gathering in the

Nicolai Schule on July 18, 1840.” Thereafter he gives a thorough account on Friedrich Maximilian’s talent and his desire to become a poet or a musician. He is often asked to recite his poems at many large gatherings. Max Müller does not disclose the type of gatherings, nor who else of his schoolmates recite or perform something else in those gatherings. We are supposed to take note of that Friedrich Maximilian’s poetries have been rich in qualities. We just have to note it and accept it! Then he leads his readers and us to the music scene at the then Leipzig writing the lines (p.104 ff): “During my stay at Leipzig, first in the house of Professor Carus, and

afterwards as a student at the University, my chief enjoyment was certainly music. I had plenty of it, perhaps too much, but I pity the man who has not known the charm of it.” Leipzig was a centre of music in the sense that many young later celebrated artists and composers came in search of an opportunity to become a part of the famous “Gewandhaus Orchestra” and also meeting the local musicians like Felix Mendelssohn. It is remarkable that Max Müller writes a feuilleton piece on artists and composers at Leipzig and lets us know that at the house of Professor Carus Friedrich Maximilian meets many of them. He is often invited by them to

participate in their performances also. Max Müller winds up this sub-aspect in his chapter on his school days at Leipzig with the words (p. 108-109): “At that time my idea of devoting myself altogether to the study of music became very strong; and as Professor Carus married again, I proposed to leave Leipzig, and to enter the musical school of Schneider at Dessau. But nothing came of that, and I think on the whole it was as well.” Only once, in this chapter Max Müller refers to his beloved mother (p. 109): “While at school at Leipzig I had but

little opportunity of travelling, for my mother was always anxious to have me home during holidays and I was equally anxious to be with her and to see my relations at Dessau.” Only once the issue of poverty is indicated during Friedrich Maximilian’s stay of five years in an affluent household of Prof. Carus (p. 109): “Generally I went in a wretched carriage from Leipzig to Dessau. It was only seven German miles (about thirty-five English miles), but it took a whole day to get there; and during part of the journey, when we had to cross the deep and desert-like sands, walking on foot was much more

expeditious than sitting inside the carriage. But then we paid only one thaler for the whole journey, and sometimes, in order to save that, I walked on foot the whole way. That also took me a whole day; but when I tried it the first time, being then quite young and rather delicate in health, I had to give in about an hour before I came to Dessau, my legs refusing to go further, and my muscles being cramped and stiff from exertion, I had to sit down by the road.” Rather casually, he reports of a praising letter to his mother from the school at Leipzig. The next paragraph begins (p.103-104):

“It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” This information is then followed by a small lecture on the differences between schools in Anhalt-Dessau and schools in Prussia. This is an effective technique to wrap up disadvantageous facts that cannot be concealed and lead the readers to an entertaining story whose factual validity will generally not be questioned and/or cannot be verified if

the story is told plausibly and palatably. In this chapter titled “School-days at Leipzig” in his autobiography Max Müller does tell us almost nothing on the “school-days” of Friedrich Maximilian at Leipzig. After all, he spends important years of his life ‘in the house of the Professor Carus’, which, no doubt, formed his later personality. And we do comprehend the structure of his personality that is wrapped around his narrations. The famous Nikolai-Schule does not change his basic personality remarkably. Nothing-unusual things have happened in that school that could change his basic personality. Excepting for the remark we have just

learnt between narrations that:

two

consumable

“It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” We recall his sufferings at Dessau due to poverty, negligence by both of the families, his social isolation, his social discriminations and the regular attacks of severe migraines. We recall also Adelheid’s ambitions, projected on her children, and her depressions. We recall

the original words by Max Müller as well: “My childhood at home was often very sad. My mother, who was left a widow at twenty-eight with two children, my sister and myself, was heart-broken.” “My father was a rising poet, ... Contemporaries and friends of father, particularly Baron Simolin, a very intimate friend, who spent the Christmas of 1825 in our house, ...” “Even the life insurance, which is obligatory on every civil servant, and the pension granted by the duke, gave my mother but a very small income,

fabulously small, when one considers that she had to bring up two children on it. It has been a riddle to me ever since how she was able to do it.” “The more I think about that distant, now very distant past, the more I feel how, without being aware of it, my whole character was formed by it.” “On my mother’s side my relatives were more civilized, and they had but little social intercourse with my grandmother and her relatives.” “... but for many years my mother never went into society, and our society consisted of members of our own family only. All I remember of my

mother at that time was that she took her two children day after day to the beautiful Gottesacker (God’s Acre), where she stood for hours at our father’s grave, and sobbed and cried. ... At home the atmosphere was certainly depressing to a boy. I heard and thought more about death than about life, though I knew little of course of what life or death meant. I had but few pleasures, and my chief happiness was to be with my mother, I shared her grief without understanding much about it. She was passionately devoted to her children and I was passionately fond of her. What there was left of life to her, she gave it to us, she lived for us only,

and tried very hard not to deprive our childhood of all brightness.” “As far back as I can remember I was a martyr to headaches. No doctor could help me, no one seemed to know the cause. It was a migraine, and though I watched carefully I could not trace it to any fault of mine. The idea that it came from overwork was certainly untrue. It came and went, and if it was one day on the right side it was always the next time on the left, even though I was free from it sometimes for a week or a fortnight, or even longer. It was strange also that it seldom lasted beyond one day, and that I always felt particularly strong and well the day after I had

been prostrate. For prostrate I was, and generally quite unable to do anything. I had to lie down and try to sleep. After a good sleep I was well, but when the pain had been very bad I found that sometimes the very skin of my forehead had peeled off. In this way I often lost two or three days in a week and as my work had to be done somehow, it was often done anyhow, and I was scolded and punished, really without any fault of mine own.” All these aspects remain in this chapter un-referred to. We remember we have only one source of information. Stories written down by Max Müller, two years before he dies. In this Chapter of “My

Autobiography” Max Müller actually proposes to remember back and to present phases of development of Friedrich Maximilian from his childhood to a young man; the development of an unfortunate morbiddepressive boy to young man. He does not do it in actuality. Instead, he writes a palatable chapter on general topics under the heading: “School-days at Leipzig”. He reports nicely that Friedrich Maximilian writes poetry and recites them in public gatherings while he went to Nicolai-Schule at Leipzig. Then he elaborates on his strong affinity for music. Unless one has become sceptical one

reads further without getting time to read an episode a second time and lured by another palatable episode. A critical review of the school days at Dessau is also called for. We cannot overlook that Max Müller did not even indicate that Friedrich Maximilian was developing strong affinity towards music and poetry in Dessau. We remember also that Wilhelm Müller wrote lyrics and Adelheid Müller was a good singer. Yet, he did not develop any special affinity towards music. But all on a sudden at Leipzig, we recall (p. 104 ff.): “During my stay at Leipzig, first in the house of Professor Carus, and afterwards as a student at the

university, my chief enjoyment was certainly music. I had plenty of it, perhaps too much, but I pity the man who has not known the charm of it. At that time Leipzig was really the centre of music in Germany. Felix Mendelssohn was there and most of the distinguished artists and composers of the day came there to spend some time with him and to assist at the famous Gewandhaus concerts. I find among my letters a few descriptions of concerts and other musical entertainments, which even at present may be of some interest. I was asked to be present at some concerts where quartets and other pieces were performed by

Mendelssohn, Hiller, Kalliwoda, David and Eckart. Liszt also made his triumphant entry into Germany at Leipzig, ... . The house of Professor Carus was always open to musical geniuses, and many an evening men like Hiller, Mendelssohn, David, Eckert &c., came there to play, while Madame Carus sang, and sang most charmingly. I too was asked sometimes to play at these evening parties.” Max Müller has evolved to a master in wrapping and covering of one simple but important fact. The childhood of Friedrich Maximilian at Dessau and his school-days at Leipzig were obviously

not at all remarkable and noteworthy. And so far it had been a rather dull life without promising any successes. He has been in one of the best schools in Germany, Nicolai-Schule at Leipzig, since he was 12 years old. However, he is not merited enough to get his Abitur (school final) from the Nicolai-Schule: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt.” First of all we must ascertain that “Zerbst in Anhalt”, to put it mildly, is absolutely wrong. Zerbst was an adjacent separate “province” in Prussia

in the north of Anhalt-Dessau. Then: why at Zerbst and why not at Dessau? He does not explain. We look into his biographies. None of his later biographers takes note of this keyinformation in their writings. So, no one questions. And no questions, no answers. We won’t like to speculate. We raise this question and demand from the recent biographers of Max Müller a convincing answer. This is not the only question that arises in our mind. We shall take up the issue: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt.” in a while in our next chapter.

Friedrich Maximilian does not try out his literary talent to become a celebrated poet. We do not know whether he has written poetries at all. Max Müller does not present those poetries composed by Friedrich Maximilian. The same thing holds regarding his talent for music. Liking music and having exampled talent are two different things. We leave poetry and music at that. Max Müller closes this chapter, “School-days at Leipzig” with a cute story (p. 109-111): “A more ambitious journey I took in 1841 with a friend of mine, Baron von Hagedorn. He was a curious and somewhat mysterious character. He had been brought up by a great-aunt

of mine, to whom he was entrusted as a baby. No one knew his parents, but they must have been rich, for he possessed a large fortune. He had a country place near Munich, and he spent the greater part of the year in travelling about and amusing himself. He had been brought up with my mother and other members of our family, and he took a very kind interest in me. ... Hagedorn, with all his love of mystery and occasional exaggeration, was certainly a good friend to me. He often gave me good advice, and was more of a father to me than a mere friend. He was a man of the world, and therefore his advice was not always what I wanted. He

was also a great friend of my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna, learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name and title, after being adopted by the Prince. To other young men this might have seemed irresistible. I at once said no. It seemed to interfere with my freedom, with my studies, with my

ideal of a career in life; in fact, though everything was presented to me by my cousin as on a silver tray, I shook my head and remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest. Hagedorn could not understand this; he thought a brilliant life preferable to the quiet life of a professor Not so I.” This sentimental and tear-jerking story has obviously sold well. A lot has been written and fabricated on Max Müller and around him. No one has yet commented this story on his “first love, Sanskrit and the rest”. We are unable to buy this story. We have read this story more than once. And we have checked

facts and facts behind facts. We read this story once more in the light of careful reading facts: “A more ambitious journey I took in 1841 with a friend of mine, Baron von Hagedorn. (Baron von Hagedorn? Barons are generally not titled with “von”. Being a German, Max Müller should have known this. That is not all. There is no mention of a “Baron Hagedorn” in reference books on nobles. A “Baron Hagedorn” has never existed. He is a creation of Max Müller. It is also remarkable that he has not disclosed the Christian (first) name of his “Hagedorn”.)

He was a curious and somewhat mysterious character. He had been brought up by a great-aunt of mine, to whom he was entrusted as a baby. (“A great-aunt of Friedrich Maximilian”? From his father’s side? Well! There is nothing on record in the archives. We let it be without a comment. We know this lineage pretty good. Who could be from his mother’s side? We recall. Adelheid’s grandfather was Johann Bernard Basedow, son of a barber/wigmaker in Hamburg. Nothing is handed down on his wife or on her parental family in the archives. Johann Bernard Basedow’s son, Ludwig

Basedow, became Ludwig von Basedow in 1833. He did not have a sister. He had two sons, one daughter, Adelheid. The elder son succeeded his father as the administrator in the Duchy DessauAnhalt. He was not significant enough to be recorded in the annals. His first (Christian) name is not known. The younger son, Carl von Basedow is recorded in the annals of Medicine with the term Basedow’s disease in continental Europe, which otherwise seems to be known as Graves’ disease. Who could have been a great-aunt of Friedrich Maximilian? Then, by whom could she be entrusted to bring up an unknown baby later becoming “Baron Hagedorn”? On top of it, as already

indicated, a “Baron Hagedorn” is not on any genealogical record. Internet search machines will refer to Max Müller’s autobiography only.) No one knew his parents, but they must have been rich, for he possessed a large fortune. (Even if we accepted that no one knew the parents of the baby and this “baby” possessed a large fortune, yet the question will have to be answered, how this baby should become a Baron.) He had a country place near Munich, and he spent the greater part of the year in travelling about and amusing himself. He had been brought up with

my mother and other members of our family, and he took a very kind interest in me. ... Hagedorn, with all his love of mystery and occasional exaggeration, was certainly a good friend to me. He often gave me good advice, and was more of a father to me than a mere friend. He was a man of the world, and therefore his advice was not always what I wanted. (This part of the story does not need any commentary in our context.) He was also a great friend of my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna,

learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name and title, after being adopted by the Prince. We keep aside the lineage of his father. We remember, Wilhelm Müller was the sixth child of seven children of Christian Leopold and of Marie Leopoldine Müller. They lost all other children before Wilhelm Müller was three years old. Nothing else of this

lineage is on records. Who could have been the cousin of of Friedrich Maximilian? Carl von Basedow had daughters, but none of them was married to a “Prince of Dessau”. On top of it, there had never been a “Prince of Dessau”. Leopold I, was a German prince of the House of Ascania and ruler of the principality of AnhaltDessau from 1693 to 1747. Leopold II Maximilian was a German prince of the House of Ascania and ruler of the principality of Anhalt-Dessau from 1747 to 1751. Leopold III Frederick Franz, Duke of Anhalt-Dessau, known as

"Prince Franz", was a German prince of the House of Ascania. From 1751 until 1807, he was Reigning prince of the Principality of Anhalt-Dessau and in 1807, he became the first Duke of the Duchy of Anhalt-Dessau. Leopold IV Frederick, Duke of Anhalt was a German prince of the House of Ascania. From 1817 until 1853 he was ruler of the duchy of Anhalt-Dessau and from 1847 until 1853 also ruler of the duchy of Anhalt-Köthen. From 1853 until 1863 he was the ruler of the joined duchy of Anhalt-Dessau-Köthen and from 1863 the first ruler of the united duchy of Anhalt. All of them were married to nobles and had children.

There is a reference of one Waldemar Wilhelm von Anhalt-Dessau born on May 29, 1807 in Dessau, died 1864 in Vienna. He was a son of Prince Frederick von Anhalt-Dessau (17691814) from his marriage with Christiana Amalie (1774-1846), daughter of the Landgrave Frederick V of HesseHomburg. He married “morganatic” on 9 July 1840 Caroline Emilie (18121888), the daughter of a court musician, Karl Friedrich Klausnitzer, in Dessau. Caroline Emilie was raised to a “wife of a Baron” while Waldemar Wilhelm von Anhalt-Dessau lived incognito the life of a baron William Stolzenberg in Vienna, where he and his wife adopted in 1855, the daughter of his brother

Georg, the Countess Helene von Reina (1835-1860). We are left alone with these references. Even if we considered that Max Müller might have meant these two in Vienna, we cannot overcome one puzzle. The questions invariably arise, how Caroline Emilie at the age of 28, and Waldemar Wilhelm at the age of 33, could have known in 1840 (the year of their “morganatic” marriage) that they won’t have children in their marriage? Therefore they wanted to adopt the cousin-brother of Caroline Emilie, Friedrich Maximilian, who was then 17 years old and just passed his high school?

Apart from this puzzle, we also note that Caroline Emilie becomes the “wife of a Baron” in 1842. We recall that an offer was made to Friedrich Maximilian before he is admitted at the Leipzig University in 1841. To other young men this might have seemed irresistible. I at once said no. It seemed to interfere with my freedom, with my studies, with my ideal of a career in life; in fact, though everything was presented to me by my cousin as on a silver tray, I shook my head and remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest. (Max Müller may tell his stories. But the fact is that Friedrich Maximilian

could not have “remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest” as Sanskrit and the rest were unknown at Dessau, Leipzig and Zerbst during his school days.) Hagedorn could not understand this; he thought a brilliant life preferable to the quite life of a professor Not so I.”

CHAPTER 4

WHICH QUALIFICATIONS DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN ACQUIRE AT LEIPZIG UNIVERSITY? We are reconstructing the life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller as it was. We have done our research - we mean re-search – getting into the primary sources. We have searched for facts and for the facts behind the facts. All existing secondary sources are fed by the

writings of Max Müller and by his British wife Georgina Max Müller. We are crosschecking now the stories told by Max Müller on the biography of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. Thereby we stick to working out hard facts only. Friedrich Maximilian avails the privilege, when he is 12 years old, of staying in the affluent household of Professor Carus and of being taught in the famous Nikolai-Schule at Leipzig. We find absolutely no information on how Friedrich Maximilian fared in that famous school. We know from Max Müller that Friedrich Maximilian did not take his “Abiturienten-Examen” at the Nicolai school. He does not disclose

the reason behind it. He simply states it was hard for him. What is behind this fact? With “Abiturienten-Examen” (high school certificate) one earns in Germany the right to enter universities for higher studies. This rule is valid since centuries. The lower the marks, the fewer are the choice of subjects. This was the rule then and this is the rule this day as well. There were and are, of course, high schools maintaining different standards. Teachers of the Nicolai-Schule at Leipzig were fair enough suggesting Friedrich Maximilian to try his “Abiturienten-Examen” at a school where the standard was not as

high as it is in the Nicolai-Schule. As a rule, such suggestions are given after the 11th class, i.e. two years before the “Abiturienten-Examen”. This hard fact that Friedrich Maximilian was compelled to take refuge at a school having a lower standard and less reputation has not been noticed by any of his biographers or admirers yet. Max Müller packed it so elegantly and served so slyly in “My Autobiography” that the focus is shifted to the need of a “scholarship”. We recall the statement given by Max Müller on this issue two years before he expired: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for

admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government”. We apologise to look a little ahead. Friedrich Maximilian will get a scholarship from the “Anhalt Government”. It was not a scholarship on merits, nor was it any school-bound. He got a scholarship for poor students belonging to the Anhalt-Dessau-Duchy. He would have got this scholarship even if he could have passed his “Abiturienten-Examen” in any other European country. Not to talk of his

getting “Abiturienten-Examen” from the famous Nicolai School. This hard fact does not fit into a school career of a brilliant brain, of a to-be demigod, isn’t it? We were also puzzled calculating the years exactly. Friedrich Maximilian had begun school in Dessau when he was six years old. He came under the guardianship of Professor Carus when he was 12 years old. At most, he could be admitted in the Nicolai School in the seventh of 13 classes needed for the “Abiturienten-Examen”. He would have stayed in the household of Professor Carus for seven years in the normal case. It is however mentioned that he

stayed there for five years only. Where did he stay for two years of his school life? He must have stayed “at Zerbst in Anhalt” for two years to attend the school there. We pointed out in our last chapter that a “Zerbst in Anhalt” did never exist in the history. Zerbst was in Prussia. There is another puzzle calculating the years. 13 classes plus 6 makes 19. Friedrich Maximilian was born in December 1823. He was admitted in Leipzig University in April 1841. He was then 17 and half years old only. He must have skipped one class. Where and how? On what basis? Then, why did he not get back to his

previous school at Dessau where his mother and all his relatives were residing? These questions remain unanswered. We wonder that Max Müller did not even mention the name of the school at Zerbst. None yet has wondered. Why? We think this aspect is important and we are reluctant to speculate. But our questions remain. There are more questions. We take liberty repeating a small part from the beginning of our last chapter to be accurate rather than narrating. We wrote: “The source Georgina Max Müller is inadequate. As referred in the last chapter she marries Friedrich

Maximilian Müller 1859. She is then 24 years old. She belonged to a coppersmelter and merchant family in the British Kingdom. Her educational background is unknown. Both of her volumes include in the main letters written in German, translated into English. We are unable to ascertain whether she ever learnt German. She devotes in her book approximately 6 pages to this life period of Friedrich Maximilian under headings: “Nicolai School Leipzig”, “Dr. Carus”, “Music”, “Letters to his Mother” and “Examination at Zerbst”. She does not care for chronology. She quotes letters without referring to dates. Amongst them, there are also six letters of

Friedrich Maximilian to his mother. These letters are translated into English from German original. We do not know by whom. We know only that the diction, the style in English, is almost that of an English scholar and not of a schoolboy. We take liberty to quote her only once. We refrain from our comments on Georgina Max Müller’s presentation, but presently parts are highlighted by us. “Before leaving the house of Dr. Carus, Max writes to his mother :— Translation. 'When I remember the time that I first sent you my birthday greetings from Leipzig, and now see that this period

of life is nearly over. I must gratefully acknowledge how good God has been to us in various ways, and has given us many compensations. But above all, how grateful we should be that God has preserved you, our dear mother, to us, to sweeten for us all that is bitter, to reward all effort. How I rejoice over next year, in which a new existence opens for me, a higher aim in life floats before me, and I shall have you both with me. I cannot tell you how I rejoice at the thought of this time, when I must take another step forwards, and shall again, at all events for a time, be with my own people.'”

It has not escaped our attention that this quoted letter did not carry a date. But we know by now that he was fifteen and half years old when he should have left the household of Professor Carus to join the school at Zerbst. How could it be “next year” that “I shall have you both with me”, unless we assume that his mother joined him at Zerbst in Prussia? There are more questions. Why was it necessary for Max Müller to conceal this important information that Friedrich Maximilian was not merited enough to obtain his “AbiturientenExamen” from the “Nicolai Schule” at Leipzig? Why did he pack his lack of “excellent merit” so slyly, very casually

only? “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government”. The second sentence is more deceptive. It diverts attention to the need getting a scholarship. We have already dealt with this aspect. It comes even worse. He continues in the same paragraph with schools systems in Anhalt-Dessau and in Prussia and then returns to music. He informs that Friedrich Maximilian has

just resisted the lure of music encountering in the household of Professor Carus. Quite a few pages have then been bestowed to music. Professors in those days were topping the list of all professions in terms of accorded social prestige. Musicians were glad being invited by professors in their social gatherings. There is no doubt that Friedrich Maximilian was exposed to music in the household of Professor Carus. Did Max Müller want us to assume that the real reason for Friedrich Maximilian’s leaving Leipzig was his exposure to music in the household of Professor Carus? Well! The next issue is more important.

Friedrich Maximilian comes back to Leipzig in 1841 and takes admission at Leipzig University. Why does he not get back to the household of Professor Carus? Why didn’t he stay with his friend Victor in the household of Professor Carus while both of them were admitted at Leipzig University? We could not get to the bottom to find an explanation. We are puzzled by another contradiction. The fact is that mother Adelheide shifted to Leipzig with her daughter before Friedrich Maximilian got his schoolfinal certificate at Zerbst in 1841. Therefore, the question did not arise that Friedrich Maximilian eventually stayed

in the affluent household of Professor Carus and studied together with his friend Victor at Leipzig University. But why did she shift to Leipzig and robbed Friedrich Maximilian the chance to study at Leipzig University not in poverty again? No questions, no answers. Instead we read on page 112 in the “My Autobiography” what Max Müller wanted us to believe: “In order to enable me to go to the University, my mother and sister moved to Leipzig and kept house for me during all the time I was there – that is two years a half”. This is another example of the wrapping-technique used by him that

conceals facts, distorts facts. And the hard fact remains for our judgement of the situation: Friedrich Maximilian falls back to poverty. We must refer back to the casual remark by Max Müller on pages 103-104 to comprehend his wrapping technique: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” In the first sentence, he reports that

Friedrich Maximilian had to pass his examinations for “admission to the University not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt”. As if passing “Abiturienten-Examen” from his Nicolai School would have excluded him from “admission to the University”, which is absurd. For “admission to the LeipzigUniversity or to any other University” he by no means needed to go to Zerbst. Now we look into the second sentence: “This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” We all know that Friedrich Maximilian is poor. University studies are a privilege of

well-to-do people only. We all sympathetically note that passing his examinations at Zerbst enabled him “to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” What should be wrong in this bypass? Who will care to know or will know that Zerbst had nothing to do with the “Anhalt Government”? And who will care to raise the simple question as we did? Was it “a scholarship” on merit? It was not on merit, as already mentioned. Before we get into Friedrich Maximilian’s studies at the Leipzig University we must recall another obvious issue. On the pages 45 to 111 “The Rt. Hon. Professor F. Max Müller,

K.M.” wanted us inform how the life of Friedrich Maximilian had been during the “schooldays at Dessau” as well as during the “schooldays in Leipzig”. We have put together all scattered information to get an adequate picture regarding the school life of Friedrich Maximilian. These are rather meagre. What did Max Müller want us to believe? We are inclined to conclude that Max Müller wanted us to believe in the extraordinary brilliance of Friedrich Maximilian manifested already during his schooldays. That is why Max Müller has imported in these two chapters a lot of “scholarly” lectures of his own. On topics which were totally off the way for

a boy as Friedrich Maximilian was up to 1841. Thus, Max Müller escaped his duty in an autobiography to deal with the schooldays of Friedrich Maximilian. An evaluation of his schooldays by Max Müller was not the purpose in those two chapters: “Childhood at Dessau” and “School-days at Leipzig”. We are also inclined to conclude that the schooldays of Friedrich Maximilian had been extremely uneventful, dull and morbid. When he took his admission at Leipzig University, he was at best an average beginner of university studies. This is the hard fact that was to be veiled by those scattered facts in two chapters. Who will feel a need to recall

the following deliberations by Max Müller scattered in the chapter: “Childhood at Dessau”: “The more I think about that distant, now very distant past, the more I feel how, without being aware of it, my whole character was formed by it.” “... but for many years my mother never went into society, and our society consisted of members of our own family only. All I remember of my mother at that time was that she took her two children day after day to the beautiful Gottesacker (God’s Acre), where she stood for hours at our father’s grave, and sobbed and cried. ... At home the atmosphere was

certainly depressing to a boy. I heard and thought more about death than about life, though I knew little of course of what life or death meant. I had but few pleasures, and my chief happiness was to be with my mother, I shared her grief without understanding much about it. She was passionately devoted to her children and I was passionately fond of her. What there was left of life to her, she gave it to us, she lived for us only, and tried very hard not to deprive our childhood of all brightness.” “As far back as I can remember I was a martyr to headaches. No doctor could help me, no one seemed to know the cause. It was a migraine, and

though I watched carefully I could not trace it to any fault of mine. The idea that it came from overwork was certainly untrue. It came and went, and if it was one day on the right side it was always the next time on the left, even though I was free from it sometimes for a week or a fortnight, or even longer. It was strange also that it seldom lasted beyond one day, and that I always felt particularly strong and well the day after I had been prostrate. For prostrate I was, and generally quite unable to do anything. I had to lie down and try to sleep. After a good sleep I was well, but when the pain had been very bad I found that sometimes the very skin of

my forehead had peeled off. In this way I often lost two or three days in a week and as my work had to be done somehow, it was often done anyhow, and I was scolded and punished, really without any fault of mine own.” ***** Friedrich Maximilian begins his studies at Leipzig University in the summer semester of 1841. He is seventeen and a half years old. In Germany summer semester begins in April/May as ever. Friedrich Maximilian obtains a modest scholarship of 15 thaler per month from the Anhalt Government. Not for his studies at the Leipzig University, not as an encouragement for his merits. He

obtains a scholarship for poor students for four years at most. This was a part of a general educational programme of the Anhalt-Dessau Government. Thus, Friedrich Maximilian avails a chance to take up university studies at Leipzig University. He gets matriculated there in “philology”. Studying at Leipzig University is expensive in those days as it is in other German states as well. At every stage, one has to pay fees. The university teachers are not paid well. They raise their income by lecturing and examining. The more students are attracted, the more they earn. Attending to a lecture is not permitted without fees. Friedrich

Maximilian faces a hard time. We shall come to this aspect in a little while. The term Philology is a deceptive package. In real practice, it means, in term of hard facts, simply learning languages at a higher level. The “Nikolai Schule” offers classical education, which means along with general school subjects a good basic instruction in vernacular, in Greek and in Latin. Studies in Philology mean mere continuation of learning those two classical languages at the level of posthigher schools. Nothing less, nothing more. Studies in “philology” do not mean studies in sciences or in philosophy.

Leipzig University runs then four faculties: Theology, Law, Medicine and “Artisten” (Philosophy). The faculty of “Artisten” includes also the subjects: Mathematics and Natural sciences, Philology and Philosophy. In all subjects one can make his Bachelor, Master, and Doctorate. One has to go through a special post-doctoral examination called “Habilitation” to become a University teacher. This stipulation is basically valid also in the present German universities as ever. Before one can acquire his “Magister artium” one has to complete at least six semesters passing through a tightly stipulated study-plan and has to

complete his 21 years of age. Before one is permitted to the examinational formalities for “Magister artium” one must have acquired his first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. The minimum stipulated time-period to obtain this first academic degree of “Baccalaureates” is completing three semesters. No age limit is stipulated to obtain this first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. It is on record that Friedrich Maximilian Müller from Dessau begins his studies in Philology at Leipzig University in the summer semester of 1841. Everything is new for him. He is not bright. He is not very fit. He suffers from regular severe

headaches. He is not engaged in sport activities. He is poor. He does not have optimal beginning of his university studies. Naturally, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is in search of finding out his interests in the new academic environment. He has to identify the right academic teachers corresponding to his interests. To begin with, he attends 12 lectures in SS 1841. He has not completed his eighteen years yet. Here is the list of lectures he attends: 1 The first book of Thucydides Gottfried Hermann 2 On Scenic Antiquities Gottfried

Hermann 3 On Propertius P. M. Haupt 4 History of German Literature P. M. Haupt 5 The Ranae Stallbaum

of

Aristophanes

6 Disputatorium (in Latin) Nobbe 7 Aesthetics Weisse 8 Anthropology Lotze 9 System of Harmonic Composition Fink 10 Hebrew Grammar Fürst

11 Demosthenes Westermann 12 Psychology Heinroth We read in the autobiography by Max Müller (p. 120): “It was enough for the summer half-year. Except Greek and Latin, the other subjects were entirely new to me, and what I wanted was to get an idea of what I should like to study.” For the first time we get a glimpse of the mental disposition of Friedrich Maximilian. In the beginning semester he wanted “to get an idea of what (he) should like to study.” We are reading the page 120 of “My Autobiography” written by Max Müller. Here, we must

confess, we are caught in that wonder some cute tear breaking story we read on pages 109 -111. We recall the story told of his “first love, Sanskrit and the rest”. We would like begin the story from the beginning of the paragraph and quote up to the last sentence of the chapter “School-days at Leipzig”, i.e. just before the beginning of the chapter “University”. The story begins with the lines on the page 109: “While at school at Leipzig I had but little opportunity of travelling, for my mother was always anxious to have me home during the holidays, and I was equally anxious to be with her and see my relations at Dessau. ... (Then, details on the troublesome

journeys to Dessau) A more ambitious journey I took in 1841 with a friend of mine, Baron von Hagedorn. He was a curious and somewhat mysterious character. He had been brought up by a great-aunt of mine, to whom he was entrusted as a baby. No one knew his parents, but they must have been rich, for he possessed a large fortune. He had a country place near Munich, and he spent the greater part of the year in travelling about and amusing himself. He had been brought up with my mother and other members of our family, and he took a very kind interest in me. ... Hagedorn, with all his love of mystery and occasional

exaggeration, was certainly a good friend to me. He often gave me good advice, and was more of a father to me than a mere friend. He was a man of the world, and therefore his advice was not always what I wanted. (Hagedorn is already introduced. We won’t repeat our comments mentioned in our chapter three.) He was also a great friend of my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna, learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if

the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name and title, after being adopted by the Prince. (His only cousin Emilie is also introduced. We won’t repeat our comments in our chapter three.) To other young men this might have seemed irresistible. I at once said no. It seemed to interfere with my freedom, with my studies, with my ideal of a career in life; in fact, though everything was presented to me by my cousin as on a silver tray, I shook my head and remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest. Hagedorn could not understand this;

he thought a brilliant life preferable to the quite life of a professor Not so I. (Friedrich Maximilian with all his handicaps is only seventeen years old.) He little knew where true happiness was to be found, and he was often in a very melancholy mood. He did not live long, but I shall never forget how much I owed him. When I went to Paris, he allowed me to live in his rooms. They were, it is true, au cinquième, but they were in the best quarter of Paris, in the Rue Royale St. Honorè, opposite the Madeleine, and very prettily furnished. This kept me from living in dusty lodgings in the Quartier Latin, and the five flights of stairs may have

strengthened my lungs. I well remember what it was when at the foot of the staircase I saw that I had forgotten my handkerchief and had to toll up again. But in those days one did not know what it meant to be tired. Whether my friends grumbled, I cannot tell, but I myself pitied some of them who were old and gouty when they arrived at my door out of breath.” End of the chapter on page 111. A palatable account. Entertaining. Nicely written. We shall keep this account, his first love, Sanskrit and the rest, the friend Hagedorn and cousin Emilie in memory. The next chapter titled “University” begins on page 112 with

the lines: “In order to enable me to go to the University, my mother and sister moved to Leipzig and kept house for me during all the time I was there – that is two years a half”, ...” ***** The first semester of orientation of Friedrich Maximilian is over. We apologise for taking a tiny break to look back. This was needed. There is no indication that he discusses with his mother also “to get an idea of what I should like to study.” After this Semester of orientation, he has started selecting his subjects and his academic

teachers. In the Winter Semester 1841/42 he attends 10 lectures: 1 Aeschyli Hermann

Persae

Gottfried

2 On Criticism Gottfried Hermann 3 German Grammar P. M. Haupt 4 Walther von der Vogelweide P. M. Haupt 5 Latin Society P. M. Haupt 6 Tacitus, Agricola, Oratoribus P. M. Haupt

and

7 On Hegel Weisse 8 Disputatorium (in Latin) Nobbe

De

9 Modern History Wachsmuth 10 Sanskrit Brockhaus

Grammar

Hermann

Friedrich Maximilian continues with Greek and Latin and puts special weight on the German language, which is his vernacular, and on vernacular literature. Other subjects of his first semester he has deleted. Lectures on Aesthetics, Anthropology, Psychology and Hebrew Grammar he will not repeat at Leipzig University. Instead, he adds Modern History and Sanskrit Grammar. We note that “Sanskrit Grammar” taught by Hermann Brockhaus in WS 1841/1842 is Friedrich Maximilian

Müller’s first encounter with Sanskrit. One year at Leipzig University has passed. Friedrich Maximilian Müller is presently 18 and half years old. There is no indication that he discusses any matters regarding the progress of his life as a student at the university with his mother or with anybody else. In his third semester (SS 1842), he has further selected his subjects. He attends the following seven lectures: 1 Pinder Gottfried Hermann 2 Nibelungen P. M. Haupt 3 Latin Society P. M. Haupt 4 Plauti Trinumus Becker

5 Arabic Grammar Fleischer 6 History of Oriental Literature Hermann Brockhaus 7 Nala Hermann Brockhaus Obviously, Friedrich Maximilian Müller continues with Greek, Latin and German literature. He adds Arabic Grammar. Why does he add "Arabic Grammar”? Is this an indication that he has begun to develop an affinity towards “Orient” in general? “Hebrew Grammar” in his first semester we have noted. Obviously, he is not confident yet about which oriental language would suit to his interests. We raise this issue as a question because we do not get any

indication from Max Müller in this regard. Friedrich Maximilian does not know yet where “Orient” begins and how far it is stretched. It is not his personal deficiency. Europe does not know yet where “Orient” begins and how far it is stretched. Again, we apologise looking a little ahead. We shall deal with this issue in the next chapter. Moreover, how should he be able to differentiate at the age of just passed 18, if the only teacher for Sanskrit at Leipzig University, Hermann Brockhaus, mixes up “Oriental Literature” and “Sanskrit Literature”? Hermann Brockhaus does not include Arabic literature in his

“Oriental Literature”. Arabic Grammar is taught, as indicated, by Professor Fleischer whose first name is not known to us. And Hermann Brockhaus does not know Arabic. Hermann Brockhaus offers “History of Oriental Literature” and “Nala”. Nala is a tiny episode in the gigantic epic Mahabharata written in a language called Sanskrit, which was “deciphered” by the early European “Indologists” through plenty of available Arabic and Persian translations of Sanskrit literature. Hermann Brockhaus obviously uses this tiny Sanskrit Text as a follow up course of his lecture on Sanskrit Grammar.

We withdraw the term ‘early European “Indologists”’ as it might lead to misunderstandings. The term “Indology” is created in Germany only. There is no record that the language named Sanskrit has ever been taught in Europe before 1803. It was a private lesson in Paris then. Institutional teaching of the language named Sanskrit in Europe begins quite a few years later. Presently we write the year 1842. We shall deal with Sanskrit and “Indology” in separate chapters later in due course. In our present context we put two strong marks of attention looking a little ahead. None of the protagonists teaching “Sanskrit” in Europe at the post-high

school level has taken trouble to learn the Sanskrit language in India. This is number one. Secondly, none of them has ever an opportunity to hear the original sound of the language “called” Sanskrit. These “Indologists” have claimed to have learnt the language named Sanskrit all by their own self on the basis of hand written Sanskrit manuscripts only. These manuscripts were brought to Europe indiscriminately as part of the booties of European robbers in India. Is it comprehensible how it could have functioned to learn the Sanskrit language solely on the basis of these booties? Hermann Brockhaus learnt Sanskrit from persons who believed that the

ancient language called Sanskrit could be learnt by reading tiny simple episodes in Mahabharata like Nala with the help of available Arabic and Persian translations of Sanskrit texts. As already mentioned, we shall get into the language named “Sanskrit”, on “Indologists” and on Hermann Brockhaus who teaches “Sanskrit Grammar” and “Nala” at Leipzig University later in the next chapter. Here we just maintain that the knowledge of the language called Sanskrit of Hermann Brockhaus has been at best rudimentary. Before Friedrich Maximilian Müller begins his 4th semester, i.e. WS 1842/1843, he does not try to earn his

first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. How could he? He is still in the phase of orientation. We recall here the stipulation of the then Leipzig University. The first academic degree of “Baccalaureates” can be earned after completing three semesters. No age limit is stipulated. An age limit is stipulated only for acquiring the academic degree of “Magister artium”. One has to complete his 21 years of age, at least six tightly organized semesters and having a “Baccalaureates” as the first academic degree. It appears, however, that Friedrich Maximilian Müller intends to earn his first academic degree of

“Baccalaureates” after completing his winter term. He almost doubles the number of lectures to be attended: 1 Aristophanes’ Vespac Gottfried Hermann 2 Plauti Rudens Gottfried Hermann 3 Greek Syntax Gottfried Hermann 4 Greek and Latin Hermann & Klotze

Seminary

5 Latin Society P. M. Haupt 6 Juvenal Becker 7 Metaphysics and Logic Weisse 8 Philosophy of History Weisse

9 Philosophical Society Weisse 10 Philosophical Society Drobish 11 History of Indian Literature Hermann Brockhaus 12 Probodha Chandrodaya Hermann Brockhaus Friedrich Maximilian Müller has obviously deleted his fancy for German Literature. He concentrates on Greek, Latin and Philosophy. He continues attending lectures offered by Hermann Brockhaus: History of Indian Literature and Probodha Chandrodaya. Probodha Chandrodaya is one of the dramas with allegories, originally

written in the Sanskrit language, composed in a simple form, which arrived in Europe via British occupants rather accidently. When it arrived in England, it is already a translation, a translation and a translation of translations. Hermann Brockhaus gets hold of a translation done in 1812 by one J. Taylor, M.D, (Doctorate in Medicine). This Dr.Taylor claimed to have made his translation from an original Sanskrit publication of this drama written by one Krishna Misri. And our search to find this Dr. J. Taylor and Krishna Misri in the web search engines does not lead us to anywhere. Instead, we are always

referred back to Hermann Brockhaus. We are dumbfounded. We write the WS 1842/1843. Hermann Brockhaus reads at Leipzig University “History of Indian Literature” and “Probodha Chandrodaya”. To judge what it means we must know about what is current in Europe as “History of Indian Literature” and how this knowledge on Indian literature has travelled from India to Europe. The same procedure is needed concerning “Probodha Chandrodaya”. We leave these issues here as planned items for the next chapter. Presently we take a note that Hermann Brockhaus knows English and we focus on Friedrich Maximilian

Müller’s studies at Leipzig. In the beginning of SS 1843 Friedrich Maximilian Müller is 19 and half years old. There is no indication in “My Autobiography”, nor is there a record at Leipzig University, that he sits in examinations to acquire his first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. There is no indication whatsoever that he informs his mother that he has not tried even to acquire his first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. We are apprehensive. What is happening with him? There is no indication whatsoever that he informs the Anhalt-Dessau government authorities on the progress of his studies. He is drawing a

scholarship for poor students for a limited period. Has he developed exam anxieties or is he facing difficulties to choose his subjects for exam? We continue to read in the 45 pages titled “University” in “My Autobiography” written by Max Müller. We remember his two major sufferings: Poverty and chronic headaches. There is not a word on his major handicaps while studying at Leipzig University. As it is in the previous chapters of his autobiography presented by Max Müller, essential and crucial facts about his real life at Leipzig University are almost concealed in the midst of general descriptions. We

read, for example, an authentically vivid description that leads us directly to the German educational set up but only indirectly to Friedrich Maximilian as well (p.117-119, “My Autobiography”): “It is in every respect a great jump from a German school to a German university. At school a boy, even in the highest form, has little choice. All his lessons are laid down for him; he has to learn what he is told, whether he likes it or not. Few only venture on books outside the prescribed curriculum. There is an examination at the end of every half-year, and a boy must pass it well to get into

higher form. Boys at public school (gymnasium), if they cannot pass their examination at the proper time, are advised to go to another school, and to prepare for a career in which classical languages are less important. I must say at once that when I matriculated at Leipzig, in the summer of 1841, I was still very young and very immature. I had determined to study philology, chiefly Greek and Latin, but the fare spread out by the professors was much too tempting. I read Greek and Latin without difficulty; I often read classical authors without ever attempting to translate them; I also

wrote Latin easily. Some of the professors lectured in Latin, and at our academic societies Latin was always spoken. I soon became a member of the classical seminary under Gottfried Hermann, and of the Latin Society under Professor Haupt. ... I still have my Collegien-Buch, in which every professor has to attest what lectures one has attended. The number of lectures on various subjects which I attended is quite amazing, and I should have attended still more if the honorarium had not frightened me away. Every professor lectured publice and privatim, and for the more important courses, four lectures a week, he charged ten

shillings, for more special courses less or nothing. This seems little but it was often too much for me; and if one added these honoraria to the salary of a popular professor, his income was considerable, and was more than the income of most public servants. I have known professors who had four or five hundred auditors. This gave them 250 Pounds twice a year, and that added to their salary, was considered a good income at that time.” His sufferings due to poverty and the cute story of his “first love, Sanskrit and the rest” (p.109-111) is catching us up again. Now we read on page 112 in the “My Autobiography”. Highlights by

us: “In spite of the res angusta domi, I enjoyed my student-life thoroughly, while my home was made very agreeable by my mother and sister. My mother was full of resource, and she was wise enough not to interfere with my freedom. My sister, who was about two year older than myself, was most kind-hearted and devoted both to me and to our mother.” We have read these lines more than once to get the basic trait of the character of Friedrich Maximilian as mediated to us by Max Müller and of course by his educational progress. He is

pathologically egoistic. He enjoys his student-life thoroughly. He praises his mother who was full of resource, and she was wise enough not to interfere with his freedom. Does he, at least, report to the mother about the progress in his studies? Then we read on page 113 in the autobiography: “Of society, in the ordinary sense of the word, I saw hardly anything. I am afraid I was rather a bear, and declined even to invest in evening dress. I joined a student club which formed part of the Burschenschaft, but which in order to escape prosecution adopted the title of Gemeinschaft. I went there in the

evening to drink beer and smoke, and I made some delightful acquaintances and friendships.” Later we shall know that he smokes cigars only. Friedrich Maximilian Müller has obviously raised himself to a master of suppressing things, if we trust Max Müller’s writings on him. We recall his 15 thalers scholarship for poor students and the small pension of his mother Adelheid. We take just one more example to comprehend how light heartedly he shows off. Members of a “Burschenschaft” wear ribbons to show their identity in public. Friedrich Maximilian Müller is once caught by the police wearing Ribbon. We read (p.

115-116, “My Autobiography”): “I myself got a taste of prison life for the offence of wearing the ribbon of a club which the police regarded with disfavour. I cannot say that either the disagree or the discomfort of my two day’s durance vile weighed much with me, as my friends were allowed free access to me, and came and drank beer and smoked cigars in my cell – of course at my expense – but what I dreaded was the loss of my stipendium or scholarship, which alone enabled me to continue my studies at Leipzig, and which as a rule, was forfeited for political offences. On my release from prison I went to the Rector of the University

and explained to him the circumstances of the case – how I had been arrested simply for membership of a suspected club, I assured him that I was innocent of any political propaganda, and the loss of my stipendium would entail my leaving the University.” Friedrich Maximilian Müller lives his student life, as it is then common at Leipzig. Generally, students then were scions of wealthy people. He has joined a “Burschenschaft”. Members of a “Burschenschaft” learn also duelling. We read on page 116, Autobiography: “Duelling was then, as it is now, a favourite pastime among students;

and though not by nature a brawler, I find that my student days at Leipzig I fought three duels, of two of which I carry the marks to the present day.” Scar marks on the face are prestigious visible signs of academicians in Germany even today. In the fifth semester, SS 1843, Friedrich Maximilian Müller reduces the numbers of lectures attended to nine. What does it indicate? Resignations? These lectures are: 1 Greek and Latin Hermann & Klotze

Seminary

2 History of Greeks and Romans Wachsmuth

3 History of Civilization Wachsmuth 4 History after the Fifteenth Century Flathe 5 History of Ancient Philosophy Niedner 6 Philosophical Society Weisse 7 Philosophical Society Drobish 8 Soma-Deva Hermann Brockhaus 9 Hitopadesa Hermann Brockhaus “Soma-Deva” is the name of a writer who has retold Indian legends, fairy tales and folk tales originally handed down in the Sanskrit language.

“Hitopadesha” is a collection of episodic pieces in the Sanskrit language written in the early centuries. Translations in Arabic, Persian and English are available since the 16th century. We are unable to comprehend how university lectures on publications like these can teach a language like Sanskrit. For all practical purposes, Friedrich Maximilian Müller has left Leipzig University before the winter term 1843/44 begins. He wished initially to attend only three lectures. We mention them. 1

Greek

and

Latin

Seminary

Hermann & Klotze 2 Elementa Persica Fleischer 3 Rig-veda Hermann Brockhaus Obviously, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is still indecisive. He tends to learn Persian also. Keeping the “cute story” in mind (“first love, Sanskrit and the rest”) we are informed by Max Müller. We read in the autobiography, pages 122 ff: “Here my Collegien Buch breaks off, the fact being that I was preparing to go to Berlin to hear the lectures of Bopp and Schelling. It will be clear from the above list (he

refers to the list of all lectures he has attended at Leipzig University) that I certainly attempted too much. I ought either to have devoted all my time to classical studies exclusively, or carried on my philosophical studies more systematically. I confess that, delighted as I was with Gottfried Hermann and Haupt as my guides and teachers in classics, I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade. Hermann and Haupt gave me work to

do, but it was all in the critical line – the genealogical relation of various MSS, or, again the peculiarities of certain poets, ... ” A lengthy lecture follows on classical languages, on literature, on philosophers and on philosophy with lots of platitudes and clichés up to the end of the page 141 ff in the autobiography. Thereafter we read: “For a time I thought of becoming a philosopher, and that sounded so grand that the idea of preparing for a mere schoolmaster, teaching Greek and Latin, seemed to me more and more too narrow a sphere. Soon, however, while dreaming of a chair of

philosophy at a German University, I began to feel that I must know something special, something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian. (...) It was a fortunate coincidence that at that very time, in the winter of 1841, a new professorship was founded at Leipzig and given to Professor Brockhaus. Uncertain as I was about the course I had to follow in my studies, I determined to see what there was to be learnt in Sanskrit. There was a charm in the unknown, and, I must confess, a charm also in studying something which my friends and fellow students did not know.”

It does not sound like a “love for Sanskrit”. Does it? We are again caught up with the cute story of Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s “first love, Sanskrit and the rest” (p.109-111). Anyway, one can read lectures delivered by Max Müller on languages, on Sanskrit, on etymology of words, on ancient gods, on Aryans, and what not. Obviously Friedrich Maximilian Müller could have known nothing of all these from Hermann Brockhaus. We shall have to know how Hermann Brockhaus had learnt his Sanskrit and where and from whom and for how long. We keep this in our mind. After reading the lecture delivered by Max Müller on

languages, on Sanskrit, on etymology of words, on ancient gods, on Aryans, and what not, we reach the page 152 and read: “He (Professor Gottfried Hermann) by no means discouraged me, nay, he was sorry to lose me, when in my third year I went to Berlin. He showed me great kindness on several occasions, and when the time came to take my degree of M.A. and Ph.D., he, as Dean of the faculty, invited me to return to Leipzig, offering me an exhibition to cover the expenses of the Degree.” At that time, it was a must to celebrate getting an academic degree. The customs

in terms of dress and entertainments are fixed. It is quite expensive. These are documented in the annals of the German universities; Leipzig University included. Georgina Max Müller quoted in her book a letter written by Friedrich Maximilian Müller to one of his friends who became a known writer in course of time. Theodor Fontane. It is being translated from German. We have not seen the original. We do not know who translated this letter (p. 19). We take it as it is. It is dated September 1843 only, i.e. much before the WS 1843/1884 begins: “Dear Fontane,—I can well imagine

that you have often cursed me not a little as I gave no sign of life for such a long time; but Morbus excusat hominejti, and I will add, Nisi homo excusat morbum I I hope you have carried on your Latin studies so far as to comprehend the deep meaning of these words; and if a human heart still beats in your breast, you must pity me, poor wretch, for having spent nearly the whole vacation in a nervous fever, so that I must stay almost the whole of next term here in Leipzig. It is ill-luck, you will agree. Well, one could almost despair, but where's the good of it? I have quietly unpacked my books and things again, and sit in Reichel's Garden, up three

flights, up which I have to climb with many gasps. I am in Leipzig incognito, for I had already paid my farewell visits everywhere, and altogether feel no inclination for society.” Friedrich Maximilian Müller leaves Leipzig University when he is twenty. He has studied unsystematically different subjects for only two and half years. He does not even try to take an academic degree. He even does not care to take a testified University leaving certificate. We wonder how he could have explained to his mother that he leaves Leipzig University without trying to take a single academic degree. Or did he

belie his mother all together? In SS 1844, he takes admission at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin, as a student in the Faculty of Theology. Yes, Theology. It is documented. As “the student Friedrich Maximilian Müller”. What does it mean? We ascertain, Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not acquire any qualification in any subject at the Leipzig University that could be assessed even as average achievement. He misused the scholarship of the Anhalt-Dessau Government for poor students. We are unable to relate his meagrely acquired knowledge to his

deliberations of our first Chapter. In our search, we can leave Leipzig behind us. Our attention is focussed now at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. He is in search of “virgin soil”. We recall: “I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade.” We recall also: “I began to feel that I must know something special, something that no other philosopher

knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian.” Well. Apprehensively we raise, to begin with, the question whether there had been facilities to learn “Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian” in Europe in general and at Leipzig in particular. Then we raise the question whether Friedrich Maximilian Müller does learn “Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian” to understand philosophical literatures in these languages at Leipzig University. As regard to the Sanskrit language, he could not have learnt more than Hermann Brockhaus knew. We leave these two questions unanswered. We leave them here as issues, as noted

items, to think about. We shall get back to these questions later. Presently we just fail to comprehend how modern scholars in Europe always assume and claim that they do learn and gain command over classical languages like Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian in a few months. Why do they fail to remember the years that they needed to learn their Vernacular, their Greek and their Latin? The question remains here again unanswered. We shall not deepen this aspect just here. It would be beyond our competence to deal with Arabic and Persian. We simply focus on the Sanskrit language. Unless we know more about the

language called Sanskrit, how it arrives in Europe, how and when it spreads in Germany and in Europe, we will not be able to assess and judge all those fantastic stories narrated by Max Müller in particular and by “Indologists” and modern scholars in general. Moreover, we will not be able to judge and evaluate what Friedrich Maximilian Müller has factually learnt in general and what kind of Sanskrit language he has learnt in particular. We take a necessary aside after this Chapter: “What does Friedrich Maximilian Müller learn at Leipzig University?” and look into what kind of Sanskrit he could have learnt so far.

CHAPTER 5

LEARNING SANSKRIT IN GERMANY IN GENERAL AND AT LEIPZIG IN PARTICULAR All students, bright or less bright need orientation in the beginning at universities identifying subjects of interest and identifying sympathetic teachers. The phase of orientation may take even two semesters. In his second semester, Friedrich Maximilian Müller comes to know that Hermann

Brockhaus, a new professor at Leipzig, offers Sanskrit Grammar for the very first time at Leipzig University. Before he decides upon his preferences, he attends Hermann Brockhaus as well out of curiosity. Orient, Oriental literature and Oriental languages are progressively becoming attractive not only in Germany. With general “philology”, i.e. Greek and Latin languages, and with German literature he is more or less familiar. In fact, Friedrich Maximilian Müller could learn only that much of Sanskrit Grammar that Hermann Brockhaus knew and could teach in three months. We did not check whether Hermann Brockhaus ever continued with his

grammar course in the following semesters. We know for sure that Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s knowledge of Sanskrit Grammar was restricted to this three-months-course given by Hermann Brockhaus. How many grammar courses do we need learning our vernacular? From his 3rd. Semester onwards Friedrich Maximilian Müller attended, as dealt in details in the Chapter 4, the following five semester-courses offered by Hermann Brockhaus: 1 Nala Hermann Brockhaus 2 Probodha Chandrodaya Hermann Brockhaus

3 History of Indian Hermann Brockhaus

Literature

4 Soma-Deva Hermann Brockhaus 5 Hitopadesa Hermann Brockhaus It goes without saying that these courses were on narrated episodes and on secondary literature in the Sanskrit language. These courses were at best based on Hermann Brockhaus‘s threemonths-grammar-course. And he lectured in the German language. After completing these courses Friedrich Maximilian Müller comes to the conclusion that Hermann Brockhaus’s knowledge was exhausted. In addition, he felt, that was not enough for him.

Therefore, he decides to go to Berlin and learn more of the Sanskrit language and more of Sanskrit literature. Franz Bopp happened then to be the topmost Sanskrit scholar, not only in Germany. Whatever else Max Müller narrates in his autobiography regarding Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s Sanskrit knowledge and love for Sanskrit does not correspond to facts. Moreover, Max Müller contradicts himself. We recall: “I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left

to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade.” We recall also: “I began to feel that I must know something special, something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian.” All this does not sound like a love for the Sanskrit language. Does it? We are caught up again with the cute story presented by Max Müller regarding Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s “first love, Sanskrit and the rest” (p. 109111). Friedrich Maximilian could not have “remained true to (his) first love, Sanskrit and the rest” before he ended his third semester for the simple reason

that Hermann Brockhaus dealt with a Sanskrit text in Summer 1842 only. And whatever Friedrich Maximilian could know about “Sanskrit and the rest”, it has come to him through Hermann Brockhaus. In the chapter “University” in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller one can read lectures delivered by Max Müller on languages, on Sanskrit, on etymology of words, on ancient gods, on Aryans, and what not. Obviously Friedrich Maximilian could have known nothing of all these from Hermann Brockhaus. The reason is rather simple. We apologise for looking a little ahead. Hermann Brockhaus himself could not

have known all these topics, as we shall know in a while. We get into the biography of Hermann Brockhaus to trace when, where, from whom and for how long he had learnt his Sanskrit language. He was born in 1806 in Amsterdam. He studied “Oriental languages” at the Universities of Leipzig, Göttingen and Bonn. The Universities of Leipzig and Göttingen did not teach the Sanskrit language at that time. In Bonn he was a student of August Wilhelm von Schlegel (1767– 1835), who was holding a professorship for European Literature. Later he was celebrated as the founder of “German Indology”, who is also said to have

known the Sanskrit language. Therefore, we shall have to apply the same method as we applied in the previous case. Whatever Hermann Brockhaus could know about “Sanskrit and the rest”, it came to him through August Wilhelm von Schlegel only. We extend our search to check now the ability of teaching the Sanskrit language of Hermann Brockaus’s teacher. There is no other way out. August Wilhelm von Schlegel is the elder of the Schlegel brothers. He came to Paris while Franz Bopp was learning “Sanskrit” there. It is handed down that Franz Bopp and August Wilhelm von Schlegel learnt the Sanskrit language

together in Paris. We look now into his vita. August Wilhelm von Schlegel is educated at the Hannover Gymnasium and studies philology at the Göttingen University. As a philologist, he gets engaged in an “ardent study of Dante, Petrarch and Shakespeare”. From 1791 to 1795, he is tutor in a Dutch banker's family at Amsterdam. In 1796, soon after his return to Germany, he settles down in Jena, following an invitation of the German poet Friedrich Schiller. He is now 29 years old. In Jena, he makes critical contributions to Schiller's journal for literature “Horen”. He translates also from Dante

and Shakespeare. These works establish his literary reputation and gain for him an “extraordinary professorship” at the University of Jena in 1798 at the age of 31. With his younger brother Friedrich von Schlegel (1772–1829), he founds Athenaeum, the organ of the Romantic School of literature in Germany. After divorcing his wife Karoline, in 1804, he is now 37, he travels with Madame de Staël as adviser in her literary work in France, Germany, Italy and other countries and as tutor to her sons as well. Until he is 46 years old, he remains adviser to her and tutor to her sons. From 1813 to 1817, he acts as secretary of the Crown Prince of

Sweden, through whose influence his family gets back the title “von Schlegel”. In 1817, he is 50 years old. He joins again the household of Mme. de Staël as advisor until her death in the same year. Thereafter he gets a professorship for Literature at the University of Bonn in 1818, and during the remainder of his life, he is occupied chiefly with oriental studies. So it is said. He happens also to be the founder of a “special printing office for Sanskrit” at Bonn. So it is handed down. We assume that he is credited to have created the first facilities in Germany to print texts in Sanskrit letters. We take liberty to look ahead a little in our

documentary narration and assert here that printing facilities of Sanskrit texts were available in Kolkata with the British Kingdom represented by the East India Company even before the end of the 18th century. In addition, August Wilhelm von Schlegel was proficient in English. As mentioned, it is handed down that Franz Bopp guided August Wilhelm von Schlegel to the study of Sanskrit in Paris. We recall what we have read in the autobiography of Max Müller, p. 122: “Here my Collegien Buch breaks off, the fact being that I was preparing to go to Berlin to hear the lectures of Bopp and Schelling.” This “Bopp” is

Franz Bopp who went to Paris to learn “Sanskrit” in 1812. Why to Paris? For how long does Franz Bopp stay in Paris? From whom does he learn Sanskrit and when does he guide August Wilhelm von Schlegel to the study of the Sanskrit language? It must have been before August Wilhelm von Schlegel starts acting as the secretary of the crown prince of Sweden in 1813. So, August Wilhelm von Schlegel could have learnt the Sanskrit language in Paris together with Franz Bopp at best for months only, between 1812 and 1813. Thereafter he had no opportunity to learn Sanskrit. Now we shall have to see how and how much Sanskrit Franz

Bopp could have learnt before 1813 ended and then evaluate the quality of his guidance for August Wilhelm von Schlegel. In addition, we have to ascertain to whom Franz Bopp could have guided August Wilhelm von Schlegel to learn the Sanskrit language. Who was the teacher in Paris? Therefore, we are compelled to focus now on Franz Bopp. ***** For a few years (1808–1814) Aschaffenburg was seat of a university, though not with all faculties, but with history, philology and philosophy. At the age of eighteen, Franz Bopp took up the

two years’ “philology course” in 1808 at the Karls–University in Aschaffenburg. This was mainly a study of languages: the Greek, Latin, English, French and Italian. He was said to have been good in his studies, but not good enough. Though at the end of this two years’ “philology course” in 1810 he stood once first and once second in the class, he was unable to earn a “doctor’s degree”. He stood twice as “Defendant” (defender of his dissertation), but the doctor’s degree in philosophy was denied to him finally, unlike the later bishop of Speyer and Augsburg, Richarz, as it is documented. Does it sound like the beginning of an outstanding “scholar”?

His academic teacher Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann, a professor of philosophy and history, encouraged his son and Franz Bopp to study “linguistics” at some other University, whatever “linguistics” might then have been. In our simplicity of mind, we first assumed that “linguistics” is a science-based post-philology discipline. Then we looked into the eventual meaning of the word to comprehend that “linguistics” has to do with languages only. Then why cover it with a Latin word? Is it also a deceptive package like “philology”? Then we started consulting books of reference. The result is enlightening for

us. It is a relatively new deceptive package. We won’t go deep into it just now. Only this much here. It is rooted, so it is maintained, in the Sanskrit language and its grammar. Modern scholars of languages have discovered relatively recently that sound and meaning of words are interrelated. The demigods of this discovery are William Jones, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Franz Bopp, Noam Chomsky, etc.. We shall have to deal with the first three demigods later in due course because of their claims of knowing the Sanskrit language. Now we get back to Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann and to his advising Franz Bopp to study

“linguistics” after he failed finally to earn the doctor’s degree at the University of Aschaffenburg. Probably Professor Windischmann was fulfilling his dreams projected in the next generation. Why his dreams? Almost 80 years later Salomon Lefmann (1831– 1912), professor of Indology at Heidelberg University, is to hit the nail on the head describing the spirit of that time, which had led to dreams, writing these lines in his book “Franz Bopp, his life and his science, Berlin 1891– 1897", (p. 11–12): “While princes and peoples anxiously following the current events were directing their eyes to France, where

a powerful war lord, having taken possession of the inheritance of the revolution, had thence seized power over Germany and Europe, the philosophers and scholars were looking at a Far East and at a far away past. All wisdom and all sciences, all art and culture, had emerged there, there in the Orient, where the cradle of mankind had been. One had to take up oriental issues, study oriental antiquity, oriental philosophy, oriental languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Persian and – was anything impossible – the culture of Egypt, the language and literature of ancient India. Beside

the

wonderland

Egypt,

brought nearer through Napoleon’s campaign, its mysterious priestly wisdom and picture scripts, indeed even more than this and more than any other country of the world India captured the fantasy. What one knew was little, the more what one did believe, both was, however, enough to push the devote enthusiasm of that time and of people to a climax. With the light of dawn, which had then just risen there, a cheerful morning was already shining to them promising the fulfilment of the most beautiful dreams and sentiments. Since hardly two decades the English people had established their rule in India, had started their pioneering

works there. The first reports of the Calcuttan society were received with true enthusiasm; everything that came from there was accepted with faithful reverence, and new revelations about the ‘oldest’ language and wisdom of mankind with boundless longing. A language ‘more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either’, as Sir William Jones said, and yet in near kinship with both...” As promised, we shall deal with Sir William Jones later. We have read, yes, we had to read repeatedly these lines written by Salomon Lefmann in 1881.

Not because of his remarkable style of expressions like: ‘with faithful reverence’ or ‘with boundless longing’. No. We are also not criticising that Salomon Lefmann, as a religious Jew, for his failure to realise that Hebrew and anything Jewish had been excluded from the blond-blue-eyed-white-Christian culture more than half a century earlier. We criticise solely this culture that produced and produce not only “antiSemitism” but “Salomon Lefmanns” as well. Even in Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann’s and in Franz Bopp’s lifetime one could have known how cruelly the successors of Columbus had

committed genocide and how beastly the massacres in the land of “new revelations about the ‘oldest’ language and wisdom of mankind” performed by the “Vasco da Gamas”, by Portuguese, by Britons, by Dutch and by French heirs. There was no dearth of reports given by eyewitnesses. How much perversion did it require to write a sentence like: ‘Since hardly two decades the English people had established their rule in India, started their pioneering works there’? And how should one evaluate the fact that this sentence or sentences like this has not been criticised and corrected by even one single renowned poet, writer,

theologian, philosopher, scientist belonging to “the wonder that was” this culture prevailing up to our days? It is absolutely not the case that Salomon Lefmann wasn’t able to formulate critical sentences. What did he write referring to Napoleon? ‘While princes and peoples anxiously following the current events were directing their eyes to France, where a powerful war lord, having taken possession of the inheritance of the revolution, had thence seized power over Germany and Europe, the philosophers and scholars were looking at a Far East and at a far away past.’ We do not wish to raise such questions

like: Did people, ordinary people, live in the Orient in those days? Or did anything else exist in the Orient besides riches, ancient wisdom–culture– language, other booties and “the fulfilment of the most beautiful dreams and presentiments” as well? Or, for that matter what is the implicit message in Lefmann’s lines? Does it not imply, rather plainly that without the ‘pioneering works...of the Calcuttan society', without ‘new revelations’ by a William Jones all cultural assets in “India” would have been lost for mankind? Do the cultural assets actually belong to their “discoverers”? Yes? We are not discussing here all these

questions. We don’t wish the descendants of Salomon Lefmann to make him a scapegoat for the intellectual lapses within this culture. We are conscious that scions of this culture have learnt to deny, every responsibility for their atrocities: Crusade, Inquisition, war, genocide in two continents, slave trade, robbery, exploitation, cultural genocide, “anti-Semitism”, annihilation of European Jews, dropping atom bombs, breaking up Palestine, defoliation in Vietnam by dioxin (agent orange), destruction of ancient memorials in Iraq, in Libya and the recent “crusades”. Sorry. Not crusades. The recent moves are “campaigns for democracy”, “campaigns for humanism”

of the “civilised international community”. Saturation bombing to prevent “humanitarian disasters” included. Just to indicate the peaks of their criminal activities. The “civilised international community” deny vehemently every responsibility as a matter of principle. ***** We presently get back to Friedrich Maximilian Müller, to Hermann Brockhaus, to August Wilhelm von Schlegel and to Franz Bopp. The academic mentor, Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann, of the young Franz Bopp, has read the book

published by Friedrich von Schlegel, the younger of the Schlegel brothers in 1808: Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (On the language and wisdom of the “Indier”). This is the very first “Indological” publication in the German language. The German Orientalists celebrated it like ‘a new gospel’. Before that, Germany knew nothing about a language called Sanskrit. Friedrich von Schlegel acquires his knowledge of the Sanskrit language in Paris as well, as it is handed down. We shall deal with him a little later. But there is one question we must raise here and now. Why did nobody at Aschaffenburg consider sending Franz

Bopp, first to Friedrich von Schlegel? Where was he in 1812? What has been known about his knowledge of the Sanskrit language? Was Friedrich von Schlegel’s knowledge of Sanskrit not good enough? If it were so, how could he write the book Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier? We shall have to check the quality of his knowledge of “Sanskrit” as well. Our method of checking, as already stated, is straightforward and simple. We just find out, where, when, from whom and for how long a person has learnt “Sanskrit”, if he claims to have acquired the qualifications of teaching that language called Sanskrit to others.

First we return to Franz Bopp’s vita. Life then is as unpredictable as it is today for the “geniuses”, who are as prone to human follies as they are today. Whilst Franz Bopp realises that there would be no future for him in Aschaffenburg, he meets rather accidentally a restless Orient enthusiast, a young lady called Helmine de Chézy (1783–1856). About this meeting, she is quoted in the Brockhaus encyclopaedia in 1858: “I found Aschaffenburg in 1812 (unlike 1811) very depressing. Karl von Dalberg was also away; after some time he returned. He was not cheerful. ...There was little

intellectual stimulation in Aschaffenburg. Therefore, the acquaintance with Franz Bopp was very welcome to me. He was about to go to Paris in order to learn Persian and Sanskrit from Chézy. In the meantime I taught him to read Persian and many verbs and nouns. Chézy with his flaming heart received him like a father. He opened for him the gates of science and gave his pupil all of his interior treasures.” In 1812 Franz Bopp is just 21, Helmine de Chézy 29 and Antoine Léonard de Chézy 39. The Chézys are already divorced since 1810. Well! Helmine is actually Wilhelmine von Klenke. Her

father a military officer and her mother a poetess. They were divorced early. Wilhelmine grows up ‘under unregulated circumstances’, whatever that might mean. In 1799 she marries Gustav Freiherr von Hastfer at the age of sixteen and divorces after a year. The countess de Genlis invites her in 1801 to Paris. From 1803 to 1807 she edits the journal “französische Miscellen” (French Miscellanea). In 1805 she marries at the age of twenty-two Antoine Léonard de Chézy, a known Orientalist in Paris. He will start teaching Persian in 1807 and later, in 1816, he will become the first Sanskrit professor at the Collège de France at the age of thirty-three, the very first Sanskrit

professorship in Europe. We have taken a note of this. In 1810 she gets separated from Antoine Léonard de Chézy, retains his name, stumbles from one relationship to another, works as a journalist and leads the life of a “liberated women” of that time. She recommends young Franz Bopp to go to Paris, especially because her ex-husband, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, has mastered Sanskrit. But how did 115Antoine Léonard de Chézy learn Sanskrit and from whom? We shall deal with him a little later as well. ***** Whatever could have happened, but did

not, also tells stories; stories about the limited horizon, about the intellectual attitudes of the protagonists of that time, about the patterns of communication, about communication channels and all that goes with it. We must however now stick to Franz Bopp’s facilities of learning the Sanskrit language in Paris of 1812. The French occupants and missionaries also have plundered indiscriminately in India including manuscripts, books and artefacts without being able to understand their significance. Finally, these booties landed either in the royal library or in the royal museum in Paris. They were somehow sorted and

catalogued without knowing what was done. There was none to identify them. There was none to be able to read and discriminate them. France has dragged out more cultural assets from Egypt than from India. A collection of manuscripts and of artefacts in a library generally becomes a watering ground for enthusiasts of all kind, especially if the curator is such a charming “contactexchange” like Louis Mathieu Langlès (1765 - 1824). There is an interesting obituary on him by A.J. Mahul in the Annuaire nécrologique, volume VI, 1821– 26. “As an officer’s son Louis Mathieu Langlès gets the job of his father in the

Watch-house of the Tribunal of the Marshals of France in Péronne near Mont Didier, in the Picardie on August 23, 1765 after finishing school. Aspiring for a more advantageous career in the colonial service in India he wants to study oriental languages. He is permitted to attend lectures of Caussin de Perceval on Arabic and of Ruffin on Persian at the Collège de France. When he publishes a French translation of Political and military institutions of Tamerlan’ – from an English translation by major Davy – at the age of 22, Marshal de Richelieu, the then dean of the Tribunal of the Marshals of France, sponsors him. He is glad to ensure that the 25 years old

“young scholar” of him got one of the twelve scholarships.” Louis Mathieu Langlès is enthusiastic all right. He does not hesitate to claim to have reconstructed the alphabets of the Tartaric language and cast them in letters for printing. When he publishes them he is accused of plagiarism, because Michel-Ange-André Le Roux’s “Deshauterayes” had already published the same 20 years earlier in the Encyclopédie. Well, Louis Mathieu Langlès could have also got away with it! Isn’t it? Unfortunately for him that someone did have a memory of 20 years. Louis Mathieu Langlès tries the same exercise with other languages of the

orient too. He loves these languages, celebrates them on all occasions, inserts words or characters into his books to draw attention of his readers by the bizarre appearance of those exotic forms, and publishes oriental texts. He contributes to popularise Arabic, Turkish and Persian in France. No one ever wanted to know when, where and from whom he could have learnt those languages. He submits several memorandums to the National Assembly between 1790 and 1794, ultimately resulting in the setting up of the École des langues orientales vivantes (School for contemporary oriental languages) at the national library in Paris. He is appointed the

president and professor for Persian and Malaysian at the age of twenty-nine. But he does not teach these languages there. Why does he not teach these languages there or at all? The reason is not difficult to comprehend. He just does not know them. In 1792 Louis Mathieu Langlès becomes none the less the curator of the oriental manuscripts at the national library at Paris. Nothing “oriental” is then on in France without him. He publishes a lot. These are translations from English into French. A genuine “Oriental Langlès”. Among the orators at his burial in 1824 is also a representative of the “Asiatick Society”

in Kolkata, founded by “Oriental Jones”, i.e. by Sir William Jones. At the École of the langues orientales vivantes Baron Antoine Issac Silvestre de Sacy (1758–1838) is appointed as the first teacher for “Contemporary Oriental Languages”. This is rather a highflying term because in 1795 only Arabic is taught there. From 1806 on Antoine Issac Silvestre de Sacy teaches also Persian. As far as “Oriental Matters” are concerned, nothing else is available there when Franz Bopp arrives in Paris. We get to know from his first letter from Paris dated January 1, 1813, to his “most honourable friend” Karl Joseph

Hieronymus (highlighted by us):

Windischmann

“...ever since I am here I am busy only with Arabic, because I was advised to acquire some skill in it before I go for other oriental languages. After gaining some skill in the Arabic I shall begin with Persian, so I hope after 14 days to be able to read light prose in this language; ...Only the Indian languages are not taught here, and nobody studies them. I shall be the only one in the summer, who is engaged with them. I think indeed to begin with Persian and Sanskrit at the same time during the summer.

...Soon I hope to send you some blossoms of Persian and Indian poets in translation, if only my fate be so favourable as to let me be in Paris long enough. Chézy will be able to afford me good services when I begin the Sanskrit. He is the only one, as I hear, who engages in this language here.” We fail to understand why Franz Bopp does not begin with Sanskrit immediately. The fact that he is advised to learn Arabic first reveals actually the ignorance prevailing in Paris in 1812/1813. Obviously it is assumed that Arabic and Sanskrit are related to each other. We remember it is handed down

that Franz Bopp guided August Wilhelm von Schlegel to the study of the Sanskrit language in Paris. How Franz Bopp could do it? He does let us know neither that had he known the Sanskrit language, nor that there were facilities to learn the Sanskrit language in Paris until the summer 1813. We must conclude that August Wilhelm von Schlegel never had an opportunity to learn the Sanskrit language. At most, Franz Bopp had talked to him about “Sanskrit”, after others had talked to him. Therefore, Hermann Brockhaus could have learnt only what August Wilhelm von Schlegel knew from others about and on “Sanskrit”, but definitely not the Sanskrit language. Thus it is comprehensible that

Friedrich Maximilian Müller went to Berlin to learn the Sanskrit language. After this tiny aside, we get back to Franz Bopp in Paris. The following episode is interesting and revealing. In his reply on March 14, 1813 Karl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann had announced to him: “I am glad of being able to tell you something pleasant this time: Prof. Othmar Frank, author of “Das Licht vom Orient (The Light from the Orient) & the Commentatio de lingua persica (Comments on Persian) – a man full of deep knowledge wrote to me recently that he will be travelling to Paris on a grant of the Bavarian king to avail

himself of the oriental treasures there. The thought came to me as a flash to get the two of you in touch, because you could be useful to each other to the good cause. I wrote therefore to him about you & he will look out for you in the library, where you could also introduce him to M. de Chezy.” Here is the reaction of Franz Bopp (highlighted by us): “Don’t you have any news from Frank? He told me he would try to go to England. I cannot assess Frank's knowledge in oriental languages; nevertheless, they do not seem to me to be profound. He did not disclose

much in this regard and was anyway very secretive. He started to learn Sanskrit here with me approximately at the same time. He bought the printed Ramayana for the library in Munich on my repeated suggestion, and afterwards he concealed it from me. He also concealed from me that he had got manuscripts from the imperial library. He let me feel altogether a petty jealousy.” We are at a complete loss for words. But not of our ability to reckon. On March 14, 1813, Othmar Frank was announced. Franz Bopp began to learn Sanskrit approximately simultaneously with him. This could have been in

summer 1813 only. Franz Bopp’s next letter we cite to his academic mentor is dated April 29, 1814 is revealing (highlighted by us). “...I have overcome the first hurdles of the language of Indian wisdom. I see now, to my delight, that I am able to master thoroughly the most beautiful, most important, presumably also one of the most difficult languages of the Orient without any help from others. ... I find that the similarity of Sanskrit with Latin and Greek is very large. This can be extended further than Schlegel (Friedrich von) has done. ...If we had had a great prince or would get one

now, I could cherish the hope to get princely support to travel to India, if I succeeded with a smart translation.” Franz Bopp has developed quite well in his 22 years of age. He claims in the same letter to have already read ‘Bhagawatgita, a small piece with plenty of deep philosophical content, translated by Wilkins into English’. How did he do it? From summer 1813 to the End of April? Was it 10 or just 8 months? The main thing is that he didn’t disclose to his academic teacher who actually was his Sanskrit teacher. His academic teacher didn’t enquire either. Therefore, we too cannot find out who

the teacher was. The reply of his academic mentor of July 22, 1814 is full of congratulations for his “dear friend”. He would also like to get “the catalogue of the Indian manuscripts by Langlès and Hamilton”, so that he could “more exactly indicate” what his pupil “should look into more closely”. He informs him also that he would ask “first our Royal Bavarian Commissioner Freiherr von Aretin, and later the king himself” that Franz Bopp should be given the opportunity “first to go to England and then presumably also to India”. For some years Othmar Frank was not to be mentioned.

Remarkable academic morals! Is it any different nowadays? The quality of Franz Bopp’s mobbing appears to be remarkably modern. We must rummage through the correspondence to put together all the bits of a puzzle to gain a clear picture of how Franz Bopp turns into a Sanskrit scholar. Even before he starts learning the Sanskrit language he already knew: “The German language is so very much suitable to render faithfully the original Indian thoughts. And I want to contribute my utmost that it (Ramayana) can be read in German language. I am already now capable to translate the first part, available in

English translation. The second part is said also to appear soon. ... Without a translation, even if it were a very free one, I am unable to translate any Indian manuscript yet, Chézy, either, hardly can, although he is engaged in that 6 years longer.” We note the date July 27, 1814. Accordingly, Antoine Léonard de Chézy must have begun to learn Sanskrit in 1808. But how and from whom? We shall find out in a while. Franz Bopp comes to Paris in 1812 to learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy only. Until summer 1813, he doesn’t learn any other language but Arabic. Why? We remember also, the

handed-down information in the European scholarly literature is just false that Franz Bopp guided August Wilhelm von Schlegel in Paris to learn Sanskrit. Uncorrected yet. What does it mean? Does it tell any story? We are too simple to understand these inconstancies. In July 1814 Franz Bopp reports to his academic mentor Windischmann also that he cannot learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. But why not? Didn’t he know Sanskrit? Instead of indicating a reason, Franz Bopp maintains that he doesn’t require any teacher for learning the Sanskrit language. Since (highlighted by us):

“Indeed I think, ...when I shall have penetrated well into everything which has been written on Indian mythology in European languages, and if I will then be able to proceed further and to draw from the sources (and what did the others do?), when I shall have become conversant with the philosophical systems of India as well as with that of our fatherland (Vaterland) and that of the Greek, then, dear friend, I will be ready to understand Indian literature without any translation and, if necessary, also without a dictionary.” How revealing! Franz Bopp has come to know that the Englishmen from Kolkata were planning

to bring out a Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary in two years. But did he really need it? According to his claims, he mastered Sanskrit characters and their sounds (“their sounds”? How?) so well that he is already thinking of “occupying” them in his own way. How? What did he mean? Well, on July 27, 1814 he explains it to his academic mentor Windischmann: “...I have worked out an alphabet by which one can reproduce the system of Sanskrit alphabetic characters in a pure form, ... Before I write the grammar, I presumably should make my system of characters known and for this purpose I want to take the

Bhagawatgita, the most beautiful parts of which you already know from Schlegel’s (Friedrich von) translation, and publish the (original) text with a very literal translation in Latin, and my brother will probably make the Dewanagari alphabetic characters for a few pages.” Franz Bopp discloses also his motive behind this undertaking. We read in the same letter dated July 27, 1814: “Whatever is printed in Calcutta in its original text is so expensive that hardly any individual, who is not very rich, can acquire several volumes without great sacrifices. The 1st

volume of Ramayana costs here 160 Francs, the grammar of Carey 280 Francs etc.” He is concerned about the “price”. He wants to print the original texts so cheap that many Germans could afford them. And in order to fulfil this missionary zeal he wants to “occupy” Sanskrit, take “possession” of Sanskrit, in his own way. He not only feels fit for this purpose, he formulates even his own claim, also on July 27. He establishes his claim basing just upon invented facts: “One writes the Sanskrit in more than 10 different ways. Every different nation in India has adapted

its system of alphabetic characters to the Dewanagari or to the actual Sanskrit system of alphabetic characters, and writes its Sanskrit accordingly. Why shouldn’t we Europeans, whose languages do actually originate from Sanskrit, also adapt our alphabet to that, in order to spread the precious writings of the “Indier” all the more?” Well why shouldn’t the Europeans even write their own “Sanskrit-literature“ in the next step? This is not just a sarcastic question. We take a note for our memory. This is also a reminder for modern scholars. Franz Bopp has repeatedly emphasised

that he has learnt Sanskrit without any help. All on his own. Absolutely selftaught. But this could only have meant, “Help” from persons as teachers. By this time about half a dozen Sanskrit “grammar guides” were available in Paris. All in English and Franz Bopp knows English, – a grammar by the missionary William Carey (this he himself has referred to), A grammar of the Sungscrit language, Serampore 1804, by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, A grammar of the Sanscrit language, Calcutta 1805, by Charles Wilkins, A grammar of the Sanskrita language, London 1808, and An essay on the principles of Sanskrit grammar. Part I, Calcutta 1810, by “Senior Merchant on

the Bengal establishment” H. P. Forster. How was their quality? Our question is more rhetorical. These were the first ventures by persons with little educational training and with questionable intellectual abilities. The quick sequence of the publishing dates indicates not only haste. We shall deal with all these persons in due time. From a letter of recommendation by Professor Windischmann in 1814 to the Commissioner of the Bavarian government, Baron Aretin, we get also some more information about the period of Franz Bopp’s apprenticeship in Paris: “I led him by instructions to the myth

systems and exquisitely in the large and meaningful teachings of the Indian philosophy (as far as they are known to us from thorough translations) to a better understanding of what he needs to do in order to become most thoroughly acquainted with the language. Now there was no halt; he asked for the sources, and it was no trouble to prompt his father (having six children) to support him, as far as possible, for a few years in Paris. There he has been learning first the difficult Sanskrit language since nearly two years, under instructions of M. Chezy, then Arabic and Persian under the instructions of M. Sylvestre de Sacy to the extent that

especially in the first one, only a few will be found in Germany and France equal to him (How should he be able to judge this?). Chezy also felt this soon from this progress of the young man and became a little jealous (How should he be able to ascertain this?); but he did not allow himself to be put off by that. Moreover, when some difficulties were put in his way in the further lending out of books and manuscripts he has copied himself what he needed for his current work in Dewanayhavi (!) letters (which letters?) in the most arduous way to carry on his work without interruption. He was thus forced by need to put together by himself a

whole grammar which he ultimately worked through with so much zeal and success that he will be able to publish his own grammar for the general benefit within a year, combined with a collection of the most beautiful spots of Indian poems and teachings; and all these he will get printed in accordance with the Indian text in his own skilfully developed European alphabet system corresponding to the Indian pronunciation (Indian pronunciation? Something like ‘Dewanayhavi’? How should he be able to pronounce any word? He does not get an opportunity of listening to the sounds of the alphabets and of the words.), because

Sanskrit letters are so expensive. He has also given me specimens of his translations from the Sanskrit, exactly in the verse measures of the original of the great Indian poem "Ramayana" (of the great Indian poem "Ramayana"?), which bears the same accuracy in dealing with the inner sense and expression as Friedrich Schlegel’s (up to now the only person in Germany who presumably understands Sanskrit). Much can be expected from such a talent for thorough knowledge of the language and literature which becomes day by day more important for the history of mankind, for the knowledge about the oldest religions,

laws and teachings and we Germans should neglect them the less, the more in England great progress is made and professorship is being established in the universities all over (professorship is being established in the universities all over?). Since the domestic circumstances of the tireless young man do not suffice, however, to support him up to the maturity in this profession and now His Majesty has been pleased to sanction most graciously an adequate grant to meet the needs, so I appeal on behalf of Mr. Bopp that Your Excellency may most kindly take up this matter and lead it to the end, so

that our true Indians might soon enjoy the paternal grace of our beloved king and be thus incited to accomplish his work, already begun, with increased zeal and cheerfulness. As far as his actual needs are concerned, these are not considerable. He lived up to now parsimoniously and meagrely and tried to earn what he needed additionally whenever the time allowed him by some extra work. However, as he is hindered by his scarce resources to acquire by his own means the necessary helps for his studies, already available in printed form, having lost far too much time with arduous copying, it is

now primarily to be seen to it that he can dedicate his energy undivided to the big objects of his profession and be able to procure himself the necessary aids, among which as the most urgent yet, for example, the edition of Ramayana appeared in Calcutta (in which language?), which, to begin with, he wants to translate completely, then the Sanskrit Chrestomathy by Carrie (by whom?) etc. etc., costing 180 and 140 francs, so I believe un-authoritatively, that, all brought into most precise estimate, 600 guilders would be not too much, to support him during his still necessary stay in Paris. His later transfer to England will then ask for

further grace by our sovereign in accordance with the higher prices in that country. Besides this grace the firmest support by the Royal Legation might be necessary to warrant a more free use of the sources. Recommending the whole matter to your favour, I remain in deepest reverence Your Excellency’s most obedient servant Windischmann.” This document alone, kept in Würzburgstate-archive, manifests the then academic culture in all facets of its factitiousness, as well as of the privileged section of the society. In 1816 in Frankfurt Franz Bopp publishes his book: Über das Konjugationssystem

der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenen der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache. Nebst Episoden des Ramayan und Mahabharat in genauen metrischen Übersetzungen aus dem Originaltext und einigen Abschnitten aus den Vedas (On the conjugation system of the Sanskrit language in comparison with that the Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic language. With episodes of Ramayan and Mahabharat in precise metric translations from the original text and with some sections from the Vedas). Edited and prefaced by K. J. Windischmann. This book would have appeared – this is just our impression –

also without Franz Bopp’s meeting Antoine Léonard de Chézy. But the issue is: how does Franz Bopp come to know all this between 1812 and 1816? Fantasies? Revelations? And what is right and what is wrong in this book? Who could and who should have checked? There had never been questions like these. And we know: no questions, no answers. This is the wonder that is this culture. Franz Bopp is now 24 years old. He gets the scholarship. Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann could not have had personal knowledge of anything he has written down as “expert opinion” in his argumentation. He had to

believe in the contents of those letters written by Franz Bopp from Paris. We refrain from a comment at this place. We read instead in Franz Bopp’s application in 1816 to get a scholarship for England: “Royal high commissioner's office! During a four-year stay in Paris I have dedicated myself to the study of oriental languages and literature, particularly the Sanskrit, to the best of my ability, with uninterrupted eagerness. The first two years I covered my maintenance at the expense of my father, a Servant of the Bavarian king, who did not shun the greatest sacrifices to support me, to

my best, in order to make me useful for the state and the science regardless of his limited means and humble circumstances. For the last two years His Royal Majesty had gracefully been pleased to grant me highly magnanimously a benefit payment of 600 guilders annually. Though this sum did not suffice to cover the complete costs of my stay in Paris, I considered this most gracious help as the highest luck, because it had enabled me to approach my scientific goals aided by a small support from my father and my consequent austerity and renunciation. In a book published recently in

Frankfurt I sought to show how much my arduous attempts might have been successful. This publication will show the aspect from which I set out to my studies of languages in general and at the same time perhaps also an evidence of the importance of the Sanskrit language and convince of the truth about the great benefit the philologist could draw from the exact knowledge of the same for the scientific understanding of the inner architecture and organism of the languages of the classical antiquity as well as of the still living ones. Which additional benefits might otherwise originate through the knowledge of the treasure of Indian

Literature is generally known. Through the knowledge I have been able to acquire painstakingly I feel fit to contribute towards publishing these so far unused sources, if I had the privilege of availing myself furthermore of the big collections of this kind in Paris or even better in London. A stay of several years in London would be necessary to complete my already started and partly published comparison of languages and to carry out at all my plan to show all languages about which some information is obtainable in regard to their possible kinship with or dissimilarity from each other, to show

their inner spirit and essential character and thus to set up a scientifically based system of the general linguistics: an endeavour linked with most important results for the scholars of language and history.” Instead of 2000 guilders annually for the first two years 1000 guilders were granted on September 30, 1817. For the academic year 1819/1820 Crown Prince Ludwig personally added an allowance of another 1000 guilders. The scholarship was extended for another year. The stay in London is only a step and was supposed to be a transitional

station. He is already dreaming of a stay in India. Of course receiving a grant of Crown Prince Ludwig. Accordingly he writes on August 24, 1815 to Carl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann: “In view of the enormous range of the Indian literary works it is difficult to come to some epitome of Indian literature. The poems are like the Egyptian obelisks. The first part of Mahabharata does not reach up to the actual beginning of the poem, it contains as a whole little noteworthy. The year that I shall still stay here I will now completely dedicate to Indian literature, and read so much as possible, in order to know in

advance about which issues I shall have to ask Brahmins for advice when I go to India, and I shall be able to do a lot there in a short time.” His dream is not fulfilled. We do not know whether that Prof. Othmar Frank played a role, who is by now well integrated in the Munich-clique. Franz Bopp, however, was to become a “Pope of Sanskrit” even without ever being in India and before he ever had an opportunity to hearing the sound of the Sanskrit language. In the annals we find him also as the founder of “vergleichende Sprachwissenschaften” (comparative language-sciences). Again, we must confess, we are too simple to

understand the difference between comparative language-sciences and Linguistics. Antoine Léonard de Chézy became in 1816 the first professor for Sanskrit in continental Europe at the age of 33. August Wilhelm von Schlegel, as already mentioned becomes a professor for European Literature in 1818 in Bonn at the age of 53, later claiming to be a professor for Sanskrit as well. The first one in Germany. In 1825, Franz Bopp becomes professor for Sanskrit in Berlin at the age of 34. He was to spread Sanskrit in Europe. He is the same Franz Bopp who saw no future for himself as an academician in 1810.

After becoming professor for Sanskrit in Berlin, he has enriched the wonder that is this culture further as the founder of so-called linguistic science. How does he do it? No questions, no answers. He even publishes six volumes under the title: Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Altslawischen, Gotischen und Deutschen (Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Zend (Avestan), Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Old Slavonic, Gothic and German). As simple-minded straightforward persons we do not comprehend the benefit for human knowledge comparing languages and their grammars. On top of

it Franz Bopp did not know quite a few of these languages. Did he not evolve to a first class swindler? Should we withdraw our question? Do we have to withdraw our question? Whatsoever. We add a remark: Linguistics is going strong since Franz Franz Bopp’s invention. ***** For the present, however, we must continue our search finding out how the Sanskrit language arrived in Europe. Franz Bopp has claimed to have learnt the Sanskrit language all by himself. No one knows how. The question has not been raised yet. We raise this issue along with a polemic question. Was the knowledge of Sanskrit “revealed” to him

while he practised spelling mentally (he had no chance hearing any sound from written letters or words in Sanskrit how it was pronounced) the many robbed Sanskrit manuscripts again and again in the Royal Library in Paris? Whatsoever. We go on with our evaluation of the available documents. Franz Bopp invents his own grammar and translates Sanskrit texts. At that time in Paris there was only a single person, as reported, who claimed to have known Sanskrit: Antoine Léonard de Chézy. He also claimed to have taught himself. How? How can we know? His Sanskrit was, however, not up to the mark, as reported by Franz

Bopp. This was the reason why Franz Bopp had to invent his own learning method. But we have detected two other references: Friedrich von Schlegel and Alexander Hamilton. They were engaged with Sanskrit in Paris even before Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Getting into these two references we come across documents telling incredible stories. Antoine Léonard de Chézy works in the Egyptian department of the Royal Museum in Paris. The administrators of the artefacts from colonial booty were entitled to “study tours” to Egypt. When in 1803 such a trip is due Antoine Léonard de Chézy falls ill. As luck would have it,

however, Louis Mathieu Langlès was there, that “news pool” for “Orient enthusiasts” in Paris. We remember him. So, Antoine Léonard de Chézy learns from the young German Helmine von Hastfer (we remember her too), a friend of Dorothea and Friedrich von Schlegel, who were living temporarily in Paris, that Friedrich von Schlegel takes lessons in Sanskrit from an interned Englishman called Alexander Hamilton. Friedrich von Schlegel puts it on record that he has learnt Sanskrit from Alexander Hamilton. We shall deal with the quality of the lessons a little later. There is also evidence that

Alexander Hamilton and Antoine Léonard de Chézy meet each other in Paris rather frequently. Antoine Léonard de Chézy himself maintains repeatedly that he was not interested in Sanskrit at all and knew nothing about Sanskrit before he met Alexander Hamilton. He was an Egyptologist only. Hereafter there are two different versions of this small (hi)story within history. One version has it that the great misfortune of missing the study tour to Egypt due to sudden illness was more than compensated by the opportunity to learn Sanskrit from Alexander Hamilton. The other version says the meetings with Alexander Hamilton

made him curious about Sanskrit. He learnt the language, however, “secretly” and “by teaching himself” and definitely after Alexander Hamilton had left France. We remember Franz Bopp’s report to Professor Windischmann according to which Antoine Léonard de Chézy has been engaged with Sanskrit since 1808. But does it really matter? Swindles remain swindles, isn’t it? Even with the best of our efforts, we are unable to understand how a Frenchman in Paris could have learnt a perfectly developed language like the Sanskrit without a teacher, without a grammar and without any help whatsoever. But why complain!

“Modern historians” and Indologists have not had and do not have any difficulty so far, in putting up with these incredible stories. They just believe in them. One must develop in this culture the ability to believe and forget the necessity of knowing. Why knowing? ***** We are now compelled to extend our search. Who is this Alexander Hamilton who brought Franz Bopp, at least indirectly, to Sanskrit and thus contributed to the spread of Sanskrit in Europe? Our search leads us ultimately to the original document and there we read the following lines: “In 1795 (wasn’t it in 1794?) the government of

the French Republic founded the École des Langues Orientales Vivantes, and there Alexander Hamilton (1762–1824), one of the founding members of Asiatic Society of Bengal, held prisoner on parole in France at the end of the Peace of Amiens in 1803, became the first person to teach Sanskrit in Europe.” Arthur Llewellyn Basham (1914–1986) handed down these lines to the posterity in his best-known book The Wonder that was India, London 1954, p. 6. He wasn’t just an anybody. He wrote quite a few books on the “British colonial period” in India. He was a professor for oriental studies at the university in London, a

Mecca for many Indians studying “history” abroad. His senior students occupy almost all leading positions at Indian universities and research institutions for the study of ancient history of Bharatavarsa at present. In return, these disciples have ensured that the “scientific spirit” of Arthur Llewellyn Basham is adhered to in the Republic of India even today. Arthur Llewellyn Basham does not tell us whether he checked scrupulously the source of his information about Alexander Hamilton. After all, he was writing about a man who lived almost 200 years ago. Obviously he did not check meticulously enough. This is not

necessary whenever the information, gathered indiscriminately, serves a useful purpose. Why should he waste time in a meticulous check of sources? Is it not enough, especially after he has made an outstanding career as a “scientist” in the in the blond-blueeyed-white-Christian culture? We will rather be busy with Arthur Llewellyn Basham. Nevertheless, there are many others who are out to make career in this “scientific” field. They are prompted by their alpha wolves to detect flaws in the writings of great “scholars” of the past. This is part of a game, called “research in modern science” in this wonder that is this culture.

We came across a publication of the “American Oriental Society”, volume 51 titled “Hamilton Alexander (1762– 1824). A Chapter in the early History of Sanskrit Philology, New Haven, Connecticut 1968”. Fourteen years after Arthur Llewellyn Basham published his book: The Wonder that was India, London 1954. A Belgian lady called Rosane Rocher proves that the version about Alexander Hamilton circulated worldwide by Arthur Llewellyn Basham is wrong in some facets. She has written in the “Introduction” of her book: “It is true that various biographical dictionaries do contain notices about

Hamilton, but they often offer erroneous information, as will be seen on more than one occasion below. The reference works about the history of Oriental Studies again and again reproduce the same errors; moreover, they are mainly interested in Hamilton as far as his stay in Paris is concerned; apart from his catalogue of the Sanskrit manuscripts of the Imperial Library, they essentially refer to him in connection with an apparently more important Orientalist, namely the one who became Hamilton’s most famous student in Paris – Friedrich Schlegel.”

We shall deal with the “wrong facets” in a while. Rosane Rocher starts properly her investigations to trace the origin of Arthur Llewellyn Basham’s error and reports that Theodor Benfey (1809– 1881) in his “opus” Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland seit dem Anfange des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick auf die Früheren Zeiten (History of linguistics and oriental philology in Germany since the beginning of the 19th century with a retrospect into earlier periods), Munich 1869, pp. 357–361, was responsible for this red herring. All “scholars” thereafter had just copied

Theodor Benfey. After Rosane Rocher made this discovery, she runs out of breath. Or, even worse, she is not interested in finding out how and why Theodor Benfey did write it. She could have asked – we think it is necessary – if it was an “accidental” error. But a scientific discipline and its ethics in this culture did not motivate her enough to look further, to find out how frequent such errors were, whether they were intentional (“malice of intent”) or caused by pressure of work – the rush to publish in a hurry. Therefore, we are still in the dark as to why the German Indologist Theodor Benfey did spread wrong information about Alexander Hamilton. Let us wait and see. We are on look out.

Hadn’t it been so far removed from our search, we would have pursued the matter. Besides, it is not our purpose presently to examine the reliability of sources of current “historical research”, but to describe this wonder-some culture and the way in which celebrated “modern scientists” deal with handeddown sources, secondary sources. Therefore, we must leave this issue unresolved here but also have to admit that we could not suppress a smile seeing this common copy-and-paste practice in all “scientific” books. We apologise for smiling. We have to deal in depth with Alexander Hamilton because there is no

reference that anybody else gave Sanskrit lessons anywhere in Europe before 1803. He was apparently the pioneer in this field. Who is he? How does he acquire his knowledge of the Sanskrit language? How good could have been his lessons actually? Here too, we stick to our simple experience of life: it is more important to know the ‘who’ of the person vis–a–vis is, what he does, by whom he is kept, than to get involved with what he is telling or what others are saying about him. We are astonished that such an apparently important personality is almost a blank page in books or documents. It is not even on record as to

where he died on December 30, 1824, not to talk about the place of his birth. This date of his death is found as an obituary notice in “Gentleman’s Magazine” in England. As a rule, the importance and the extent of fame of contemporary personalities can be derived from documented references. Does anybody depart from life the way Alexander Hamilton did if he had been such an important personality as late-born “historians” and “Indologists” want to make us believe? Why do they do it? We just cannot accept that Alexander Hamilton was an important personality of his time. In all probability, he is made to be an

important personality. But why? What was the necessity? We have to investigate. As narrated by Helmine de Chézy and Friedrich and Dorothea von SchlegeI Alexander Hamilton was born in a Scottish village. Name unknown. Nothing else is known about his childhood, or anything about his education. They had often been together in Paris, they were friends, in fact, and they had shared a flat and lived as a “commune” for some time. They must have known much more about Alexander Hamilton than they have handed-down to posterity in writing. Why didn’t they tell us more about him?

The most probable explanation is that there was nothing worthwhile narrating about his parents, his childhood, his school days, his upbringing, and his education. He apparently didn’t have a college degree. He doesn’t appear on any Graduate list of the colleges in Great Britain. The earliest record about him is found in the alphabetical list of all members of the Indian army of 1783. Accordingly, he is recruited as a cadet for the “Bengal Army” in England. The date of his birth is missing, which was not usual. This could be an indication that either his parents died early or that he did not know the exact date of his birth. It is also not known when he comes to

Kolkata. This was uncustomary too. At that time, only a few ships sailed to Kolkata. Usually passenger lists were prepared and filed. Nevertheless, there were passengers and lesser passengers presumably also at that time. He however appears on a list in Kolkata in February 1785 as an ensign of the infantry, the lowest rank of a would be officer in the infantry, and not as a naval officer, as Franz Bopp, Salomon Lefmann, Ernst Windisch (1844–1918) and others have handed-down. Who would like to know how they came to “Naval Officer” and which wishful wrong information they had copied. It was definitely not accidental to vendor

wrong information. Naturally, this wrong information is diligently created and spread. Doesn’t “Naval Officer” sound more dignified than an “infantry ensign”? Well!” This list of February 1785 indicates that Alexander Hamilton arrived in Kolkata not before the 4th quarter of 1784. According to the “Bengal Calendar” on February 22, 1785 and according to the “Calcutta Monthly Register” on March 13, 1785 he joins the infantry. From 1785–1790 he remains a “supernumerary” in the infantry, i.e. the lowest grade in the career to an officer. On February 15, 1790, he becomes permanent: “Ensign Supernumerary to

the Establishment, to be brought from the 15th February 1790, on Full Pay and Posted to Corps.” He couldn’t have been a big shot at that time. His financial means were modest up to February 15, 1790. The “Asiatick Society” was founded on January 15, 1784. It publishes in the first volume of Asiatick Researches a list of all members of the “Asiatick Society” for the first time on January 15, 1789. We shall deal with this Society and all that goes with in later in a separate chapter. On this list he is listed as a lieutenant. How could he be “Lieut. Alexander Hamilton” on January 15, 1789 if he was “Ensign Supernumerary to the

Establishment, to be brought from the 15th February 1790, on Full Pay and Posted to Corps?” Is it because an ensign supernumerary was too low in standard for the high honourable society of “colonial scholars” and he was therefore just upgraded? This list might have tempted Theodor Benfey to promote Alexander Hamilton to a founder member of the “Asiatick Society”. “Founder-members” carry more weight, don’t they? The fact is that he couldn’t be a founder member because he landed in Kolkata approximately a year after the “Asiatick Society” was founded. “Modern historians” and “Indologists” are

obviously just carried away to palatability when they narrate and thus becoming swindlers. Who is going to check once it was printed? We know already that celebrities like Arthur Llewellyn Basham didn’t care more about checking before copying former printed products and did not hesitate to tamper documents to transport great visions. Since 1785, its founder, Sir William Jones, celebrates the “Asiatick Society” at the beginning of every year. He invites all non-Asians in and around Kolkata and those posted elsewhere to his annual “discourses”. He encourages and puts pressure on every “Tom, Dick and

Harry” to write field reports. Only nonAsiatic “Tom, Dick and Harry”, of course. He edits and publishes them as learned investigation reports. Since 1789 the Asiatick Researches comes out annually and are circulated in Great Britain. And from there to the whole of Europe. In none of these volumes is there a mention of Alexander Hamilton. Not to speak about an “enthusiastic Sanskritist” or “Orientalist” Alexander Hamilton. And there is absolutely no indication in later publications that anybody in Kolkata had ever taken notice of Alexander Hamilton. Quite remarkable, isn’t it?

We have taken notice of Alexander Hamilton whilst we rummaged through available documents. On March 4, 1790, Alexander Hamilton submitted an application to the governor general Lord Cornwallis. This application was detected later among Lord Cornwallis’ personal correspondence. We take a note that the application was in the file of personal correspondence. This is the first specimen of the writing quality of Alexander Hamilton. We quote this application here in full: “My lord. I beg leave to submit in the most respectful manner to your Lordship’s consideration, a request which I

flatter myself will not be deemed unreasonable, when the motives upon which it is founded are considered. A sense of the utility which might be derived from a knowledge of the Sungscrit language, its importance to the political interests of England in this country, and the conviction of that importance discovered by the Court of Directors in their approbation of the ample salary granted to Mr. Wilkins during the crisis of last war to enable him to prosecute that study, as well as in the letter from their Chairman, congratulating that Gentleman on so extraordinary an attainment, encouraged me to engage in a

pursuit, where my own inclination was stimulated by so flattering a precedent. The liberal and enlightened policy of the Honble Court could not fail to suggest to them the difficulty of governing a nation, without an intimate acquaintance with its language, religion, laws, manners and customs: and that with respect to the Hindus who constitute the great body of the people, and who from their superiority in mental endowments as well as in industry and number, merit the first consideration, that knowledge is chiefly to be expected from the development of the science contained in their Sacred Language.

Whether these, or motives more cogent influenced the Court of Directors I shall not presume to determine; it is sufficient for my purpose to shew by a respectful reference to that document, that it was their wish to encourage the study, and that such a resolution was founded on the wisest principles of policy. A due regard for your Lordship's time will not permit me to encroach on it so far as would be requisite to prove how essentially the knowledge, to which those researches ultimately tend, is connected with the happiness of the subject and the security of property. The importance of the Sungscrit in a political view

requires no elucidation, it being the only language universally diffused over every part of Hindustan, by means of which the Bramins of Bengal, Mysore, Guzerat or the Punjab possess a common medium of communication and intercourse, and from which the vernacular dialects of the Provinces do not materially differ. If those observations which I have purposely compressed convince your Lordship of the superior utility of my present pursuits, I may flatter myself I shall experience no difficulty in obtaining a dispensation from military duty at least whilst I continue supernumerary to the Army Establishment. The routine of

Garrison duty being altogether incompatible with similar pursuits I may urge my request on different grounds, as the convenience it affords me of indulging my inclination in the research, is my chief if not my sole motive for continuing in a Service, where I have no prospect of attaining beyond the situation of a Subaltern. Should the exemption I most humbly solicit still appear objectionable, I may yet hope your Lordship will not class this application with those which motives of interest or pecuniary convenience may have produced from others. – I have the honour to be. My Lord. Your Lordships most obedt and very

humble Servt A. Hamilton Calcutta 4th March 1790 P.S. It appears totally superfluous to add that my request does not extend to an exemption from real service, but to the ordinary routine of Garrison duty exclusively. To Earl Cornwallis. K. G.” There is no indication that his application had ever been officially dealt with. From “The Bengal Calendar” and “The Calcutta Monthly Register” of

October 1790 we know that: “Ensign Alexander Hamilton, having received permission to resign the service, at his own request, his name is struck off the list of the army.” At the end of 1790, the 2nd volume of Asiatick Researches came out. Therein, also the 2nd membership list of the “Asiatic Society”. Instead of “Lieut. Alexander Hamilton” we read now “Alexander Hamilton. Esq.”. Once again, we take the note that he couldn’t have become a Lieutenant if he was permitted to resign the service later as “Ensign Alexander Hamilton”. But these are in fact trifles and still venial sins of “modern history” as a science, as

we shall see. “The Bengal Calendar and Almanac” of 1792 did not include, quite logically, the name Alexander Hamilton any more on the list of the military. On the list of the British “civilians”, there is no Alexander Hamilton. What can be concluded from these facts? Anything else than that he had left Bengal? The modern history as a science is however more imaginative. The language in the application reveals that Alexander Hamilton is shaky, grammatically insufficient and weak in expressions. Where and when could Alexander Hamilton have learned good writing? In the beginning of the 1780s, he is about 20 years old. Probably he

has only a simple school education. He does not have any profession yet. Young people with good professional training didn’t generally join the colonial army. It was then sufficiently known that soldiers died early in subtropical India, if they did not die on the voyage itself. They generally didn’t return rich, if they did return at all. In all probability, Alexander Hamilton does not have much of a choice in Kolkata. Being an ensign, he learns the craft of a soldier who is generally more used to getting orders than to express himself in talking, not to mention in writing. At the end of 1784 he lands in Bengal, doesn’t earn full pay for five

long years and remains an ensign. The life of a soldier doesn’t suit him. He doesn’t see a future in the army. As an ensign, he has to deal with locally recruited mercenaries. He is a mediator between non-English speaking ordinary soldiers and the British officers. Five years in this position might have enabled him to acquire the language of the local soldiers a little more than officers needed it. Doing this job, he might have discovered his affinity to the local language more than to his duty of an ensign. By 1790, he becomes aware that even with full pay he would continue to be just a ‘Subaltern’ in the infantry. In view of

this despairing perspective, he looks out for a “more civilian” work. “Historians” and biographers should have taken note of the real situation. How could an ensign – who was not even on his full salary – afford an Indian “Pandit” (learned persons) to learn the Sanskrit language? Besides, doesn’t the shaky simple English with grammatical and syntactic errors in his application speak for itself? We have read his application repeatedly in order to be fair to Alexander Hamilton. He doesn’t show off, he is not a cheat, he is not a swindler. In his simplicity, he just becomes a victim of “gossips” on and about Charles

Wilkins, that he made a remarkable career only because he had learned the Sanskrit language. And on ‘ample Salary', of course. Europeans in India were money obsessed. So, all those on top there would draw ‚ample Salary’. We shall deal also with Charles Wilkins in due course. Alexander Hamilton couldn’t possibly have known Charles Wilkins personally in Kolkata. Otherwise he wouldn’t have referred to him wrongly, nor repeatedly referred to ‘court of Directors’, ‘ample Salary’, ‘crisis of last war’, ‘enable him to prosecute that study’, ‘letter from their Chairman’ ,‘congratulating that gentleman’ in connection with Charles

Wilkins. These were rather rumours in the air after Charles Wilkins had left Kolkata in 1786. It is indeed remarkable that Alexander Hamilton did not apply for “funds” for his study of “Sanskrit” – learning the Sanskrit language without private teachers (Pandits) was not feasible – and, applied only to be freed from ordinary routine service. He wanted to take the burden of the private teacher himself. Or he didn’t know yet that he needed a private teacher to learn the Sanskrit language. Does that mean something? What does it mean? In October 1790, he leaves the army. We are unable to judge whether his decision

to leave the army was desperate or courageous or triggered by some realistic desire for a “more civilian” life. The resignation meant also no regular earnings. What does he do? What could he do? It is certain that he does not get a job as a “writer”, nor works for a business subsidiary in Bengal. In such a case, his name would have been listed in one of the various “registers” in Kolkata. It is beyond doubt that he had not been a regular resident of Kolkata since 1792. If he stayed in India, he would have appeared in one of the “registers” for sure. This is not the case. The other issue is that there is no evidence showing that he returned to England.

Does that mean something? What does it mean? ***** Helmine von Hastfer, we remember her, lived in 1803 in the house of Dorothea and Friedrich von Schlegel in Paris. Alexander Hamilton lived there too. Rosane Rocher, the only biographer of Alexander Hamilton, has tried to establish with the help of two quotations by Helmine de Chèzy that Alexander Hamilton was married in Kolkata (p. 10): “In an often quoted passage from her autobiography (p. 270, 2nd volume, Leipzig 1858), she says: ‘The famous

Indianist Hamilton who lived many years long in East India and had a native woman as wife and a hopeful son there.’ But she gives much more detailed information in one of her other writings, which is less known (p.86, Freihafen III, 4, 1840): ‘His heart had remained in India, where tender, holy bond made him happy for thirteen years long, he had taken a native for marriage, and a son of her, often he spoke of his bond with this sweet creature, with that, I would like to say, ashamedly emotion and tenderness, which was like an emblem of authenticity of a deep feeling.’” Rosane

Rocher

takes

these

two

quotations to construct that Alexander Hamilton was married for 13 years, before he left India. Then she applies her skill and art of reckoning. He could not have reached India before the end of 1783, she maintains. Thereafter he needed some time to marry an Indian woman, so Rosane Rocher. Then she concludes with her inimitable precision that he could not have left India before 1797. We could better quote Rosane Rocher than arouse suspicions that we are distorting her writing (p. 10): ”The important element in this passage is that, according to Helmine von Chezy, Hamilton would have been married for thirteen years before he

left India. Assuming that he could not have come to India before the end of 1783 (Why 1783? What should he have done in Kolkata without resources before he became ensign at the beginning of 1785? She does not put these or similar questions.), and allowing some time before he decided to marry an Indian woman, one may conclude that he cannot have left India before the year 1797. It is the more interesting to arrive at the year 1797 as the terminus post quem for his departure from India, because the year 1797 at the same time is the terminus post quem given by another source for his arrival in Edinburgh. Indeed, according to a statement of

Lord Cockburn: ‘In particular, between 1797 and 1800, some conspicuous young men had come to Edinburgh, to whom, being strangers, the merits of Jeffrey were more apparent than they hitherto had been to many of those among whom he dwelt. Some of these have been already named in mentioning the Speculative Society ... In addition to these were Lord Webb Seymour, Mr. Sydney Smith and Mr. Hamilton, also strangers.’” We don’t feel an urge to raise here our standard question whether Rosane Rocher cared to check how Lord Cockburn arrived at this conclusion in

1852. However, we must confess that we are dumbfounded by these acrobatics. We read the quotations of Helmine de Chézy again and again to find the alleged statement that Alexander Hamilton had lived together with his Indian wife for thirteen years and had left behind a grown up son. It may be, we don’t possess enough fantasy not to read again and again the simple statement: Alexander Hamilton missed his native wife and his son also after 13 years and he kept them in memory. Accordingly, he, most probably, had to leave behind his “wife” and son in 1791 or 1792 in India. This wouldn’t be a singular case. It was a question of material survival. The left–behinds did

get a name too, the “Anglo-Indians”. Rosane Rocher could also have wondered as we do, why Alexander Hamilton didn’t call his family to Great Britain after he became a “great and famous scholar”. We are also astonished to note how insolently “history” is being forged. Rosane Rocher completed this “reconstruction” in the first ten pages of her book of 128 pages. Then on pages 11–33 under the subtitle: “Great Britain: The first publications” she ascribed to Alexander Hamilton as many anonymous articles published in the Edinburgh Review and in Asiatic Annual Register as she needed to make

in a learned way a great and famous scholar out of him. In the following pages wondrous metamorphoses occur. All shaky speculations and forgeries connected with his biography become hard facts. Not only for Rosane Rocher who dealt in the pages 11 ff. with “facts” only. That was just what other “historiographers” were waiting for. A classic example of how (hi)stories are “made” in the “wonder that is” modern scientific culture. We mean example and not a singular case of making “scholar extraordinary”. Hard to believe, but unfortunately true. We read on page 33 of that well-known

book that appeared in 1997 in the University of California Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles / London. Title: Aryans and British India. Author: Thomas R. Trautmann, a professor at the University of Michigan, a favourite pupil of the renowned “historian” Arthur Llewellyn Basham (highlighted by us): “...the Orientalist Alexander Hamilton reviews A journey from Madras, through the countries Mysore, Canara and Malabar, whose author, Francis Buchanan, ‘possessed no means of communication with the natives but through an interpreter’ ...”

On page 110: “Several of the new Orientalists, such as Alexander Hamilton and Sir John Shore, had Indian wives, and it cannot but have helped them to develop a fluency, if not in Sanskrit or Persian, at least in Hindustani and other modern languages.” Sir John Shore hasn’t mentioned Alexander Hamilton at all in his 13 volumes on Sir William Jones published in 1804. We continue reading Thomas R. Trautmann, a favourite pupil of the renowned “historian” Arthur Llewellyn Basham. Page 115: “Alexander Hamilton, member of the,

Asiatic Society and retired officer of the East India Company’s army, became, by virtue of his appointment to the East India College, the first Sanskritist to hold a professorship in an institution of higher learning in Europe.” On page 138–139: “Alexander Hamilton, the first Sanskrit professor in Britain (at the East India College), became the conduit by which knowledge of Sanskrit passed from Calcutta to Paris and thence to Germany. Hamilton, who had served as an officer in the army of the East India Company, learned Sanskrit in Calcutta and became a member of the

Asiatic Society (did he learn Sanskrit before he became a member?); in 1790 he had petitioned the government for facilities to study Sanskrit. He resigned his commission and returned to Britain in 1796, where he lived off the proceeds of journalism, writing for the Monthly Review for a time, and then for the Edinburgh Review, of which he was one of the founders (Thomas R. Trautmann is capable of wondrous fantasies, isn’t he?). By the peace of Amiens (25. March 1802) hostilities between Britain and Napoleonic France were suspended, and Hamilton like many other Britons, took the opportunity to travel to

France, only to become a prisoner of war by the decree of 23 May 1803, when war resumed. Hamilton was however treated most liberally by the French authorities, being allowed to live wherever he liked in Paris and to move about freely. He spent the time in the company of Orientalists, especially Louis Mathieu Langlès, with whom he collaborated in cataloguing the Indian manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale, which service was probably the reason of his liberty. He also taught Sanskrit to a few students, of whom the most notable was Friedrich Schlegel, whose Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier” (On the language

and wisdom of the Indians, 1808) had a vast effect in fomenting German Indomania and Sanskrit study. Schlegel’s brother August Wilhelm Schlegel later repaired to Paris to study Sanskrit, going on to become the first professor of Sanskrit in Germany (1818), and his student (Thomas R. Trautmann’s wondersome discovery!) Franz Bopp also went to Paris for Sanskrit study, as did Friedrich Max Mueller somewhat later.” Why do we meet swindlers only? A forgery of history par excellence. We are not dealing with singular cases. In this area, we are yet to find a singular

case of academic correctness and honesty. We assume that our findings are only a peak of the general dirty morass. We are still dealing with the same Alexander Hamilton who wrote that application. Thomas R. Trautmann doesn’t run any risk spreading eloquently false (hi)stories. After all, he is a “renowned historian” with “profound knowledge” in anthropology too. Anthropology is that branch of “science” which followed the “philology” to which we owe “racism”. And if the false presentations get exposed, nothing will happen to Thomas R. Trautmann. Because here he makes a footnote to shun off his responsibility.

Though, this is his first remark relating to Alexander Hamilton: “For the information in this paragraph I rely on Rosane Rocher’s biography (1968) and article (1970) on Hamilton, and on Jane Rendall’s work on the Scottish Enlightenment.” A fine state of affairs, isn’t it? Later on page 148–149 he quotes Alexander Hamilton more than once. These are quotes from Edinburgh Review, from articles ascribed to him by Rosane Rocher. Here are a few samples of how nicely they are presented: “Hamilton embraced Colebrooke’s (We shall deal with Colebrooke also,

but in due course in a later chapter.) unity of origin theory and deployed it in his Edinburgh Review piece... He believed it not improbable that the Brahmins entered India as conquerors... He thought however that the Paiśāci or demons’ language spoken of by the ancient Indian grammarians was totally distinct from the Sanskrit in its origin...that one great nation formerly peopled Hindustan, and were driven, by invaders, to those hilly countries which they still occupy. (Hamilton 1808:93).” Statements of this category are, leniently

spoken, products at best of sick fantasy. Again extremely leniently spoken, such statements express cultural prejudices of the writers of their culture rather than the chronicler reports of a Megasthenes. However, for the “scholars” like “Thomas R. Trautmanns” any printed word in the Edinburgh Review or anywhere else is a “reliable” source. And it is a rather cheap trick when he just refers to quotations in brackets like: (Hamilton 1808:93). In this case, it is a no-named article in the Edinburgh Review. What do these “Thomas R. Trautmanns” and “Arthur Llewellyn Bashams” do when they do not find the needed printed words for their “scholarly” deliberations? We leave this

question unanswered, but keep it in memory. Thomas R. Trautmann continues (p. 149) “Jones, in his eighth discourse, had spoken of the Indian mountaineers as ‘many races of wild people with more or less of that pristine ferocity, which induced their ancestors to secede from the civilised inhabitants of the plains and valleys.’ He thought they sprang from the old Indian stem, although some of them soon intermixed ‘with the first ramblers from Tartary, whose language seems to have been the basis of that now spoken by the Moguls’ (Jones 1807,

3:172–173). Hamiltons proposal of the unitary language and aboriginal character of all the ‘mountaineers’ goes considerably further than this. But taken all together, the testimony of Jones, Colebrooke and Hamilton is that British belief in the ethnological and linguistic unity of India was never complete.” How did Sir William Jones come to know all these? Sources? Is there any need ask for sources? Is there any need of sources? Are not ‘Jones, Colebrooke and Hamilton’ enough? We are dumbfounded, indeed. Thomas R. Trautmann has decorated his book Aryans and British India with a

dedication: “In memory of A. L. Basham, British Sanskritist, historian of India, guru, friend”. We remember the blessings Arthur Llewellyn Basham brought us at the beginning of this chapter: “In 1795 the government of the French Republic founded the École des Langues Orientales Vivantes, and there Alexander Hamilton (17621824), one of the founding members of Asiatic Society of Bengal, held prisoner on parole in France at the end of the Peace of Amiens in 1803, became the first person to teach Sanskrit in Europe.” *****

The whole scenario of these celebrated scholars seems to be a dirty morass of darkness, dishonesty and deception. Recent “scholars” attribute Alexander Hamilton the lofty height of powerful language like that of Francis Jefferey, Sydney Smith and Henry Brougham. However, there is not a single essay bearing his name. We recall his application dated March 4, 1790. Our imaginative capacity fails absolutely to grasp how and where he could have improved the quality of his writing. Was he not battling for physical survival, compelled to desert his wife and son? It just doesn’t enter into our head why Alexander Hamilton didn’t write a

single “scholarly discourse” after he ascended as an expert on oriental questions to the editorial team of the Edinburgh Review? Not even after having become a “Professor of Sanskrit” (Sorry. There is no document in the archives on his being a “Professor of Sanskrit”.). He published merely his Terms of Sanskrit Grammar in 1814. Charles Wilkins published in 1815 The Radicals of the Sanskrita Language. Scholarly pieces? Both of them were rather copying intermediaries. In the style of beginners. Alexander Hamilton’s involuntary Parisian intermezzo tells also many stories like his application of March 4,

1790. It is remarkable that some stories went round in Paris, which was unknown in Edinburgh. Lord Cockburn only knew that: "Mr. Hamilton was a Scot, was in India, an easy to get along with person of small stature, excellent in the conversation and great expert of oriental literature.” Or that in the inner circle he was also called“Sanskrit Hamilton” or “Pandit”. In Paris remarkable stories went round. Alexander Hamilton had lived long years in India and was the master of oriental languages including Sanskrit. He belonged to the excellent scholar group of Sir William Jones. He had lived long in Bengal with Brahmins. As a Sanskrit

scholar, he ranked equally with Charles Wilkins and William Jones and so forth. Who did have have these stories to do the rounds in Paris? Obviously, Alexander Hamilton had lost his innocence of March 4, 1790. In Paris, he seized the opportunity and placed himself in the centre of Orientalists who knew not much more beyond Egypt but did hear a lot about Sanskrit literature from India. For his “career” in Paris Louis Mathieu Langlès was the key figure. We remember. Louis Mathieu Langlès is in charge of the oriental manuscripts in the royal library. He published a lot, yet is not regarded as a scholar. His original

contributions are restricted to footnotes. Mainly he translates English texts into French. How he came to know Alexander Hamilton is not known. But the fact remains that he marketed Alexander Hamilton quite effectively in Paris and thereby himself as well. It is said that he always discussed his translations of oriental manuscripts from English to French with Alexander Hamilton. But the strange thing is that Alexander Hamilton does not speak any French. Louis Mathieu Langlès never forgets to immortalise his footnotes by reference to his discussions with the great scholar Alexander Hamilton. He is keen to get those “Bengali” and“Sanskrit” manuscripts (We do not

know how the great Orient fan could discriminate these two languages) from India under his administration into a “systematic” catalogue organised by Alexander Hamilton. This does happen. Alexander Hamilton sorts out the manuscripts, provides explanatory notes in English and Louis Mathieu Langlès makes the French version. He writes in the catalogue: “I translated it into French and added to a large number of essays more or less extensive remarks. Some of these remarks were provided by Alexander Hamilton himself, the others resulted from ‘Recherches Asiatiques’, from my own footnotes to

the French translation of the first two volumes of this erudite collection, (i.e.) the works of Mr Jones, the English translation of Indian laws by Mr Colebrooke, from the works of padre Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomeo and from other oriental manuscripts of the Imperial Library.” (Translated from original French.) Well, once again, the crux of the matter is that Louis Mathieu Langlès was unable to judge the quality of Alexander Hamilton’s work. In fact, no one in Europe could. And Alexander Hamilton could not read French. Louis Mathieu Langlès was not interested in learning Indian languages, but he propagated

Alexander Hamilton in Parisian parlours. He made it possible for Alexander Hamilton to teach “Sanskrit” in Paris. As life would have it, Dorothea and Friedrich von Schlegel lived there for a short while, because Friedrich von Schlegel, 32 years old, wanted to learn oriental languages. Why in Paris? “... because the richest collections of literature in oriental languages are stored there.” How this collection was connected with the learning of oriental languages? We have raised this question. We are enormously surprised. It goes like this: Take a translated version and the original book. It doesn’t matter

whether this translated version is also a translation from a translated version. It can be a repeatedly translated version. The main thing is that one has some vague ideas about the contents of the original book. Now the guessing acrobatics begin. To put it mildly: This was the time of literate acrobats and salespeople. “The Schlegels” had rented a large floor at a reasonable price. They didn’t have enough money. They had planned to sublet furnished rooms. On January 15, 1803, Friedrich writes to his elder brother August Wilhelm (We remember him. He taught Hermann Brockhaus Sanskrit in Bonn, so it is said.): “The

grammar of the ordinary Indian languages (Which ones? How should he know them?) I have acquired already (how?); but the Sanskrit I shall be able to begin in the spring only. Because the libraries are not being heated.” Isn’t it interesting? Friedrich von Schlegel also gets inkling about the collection in the royal library in Paris, as did Alexander Hamilton. On May 15, 1803, he reports to his brother on a lucky coincidence: “I am perfectly fine. Because I learnt much, very much. I have not only made progress in Persian, but I am also nearing my great objective, that I master Sanskrit. I will be able to

read the Sakontala within four months in its original text, though I will presumably still need the translation. Enormous effort was required because of a great complication and I had to develop my own method of guessing (Divinierens); since I had to learn the elements without elementary books. I was finally fortunate that an Englishman called Hamilton, the only one in Europe except for Wilkins who knows, and very thoroughly knows, could at least help me with advice.” We couldn’t have described this adventurous method of learning the Sanskrit language more vividly.

Friedrich invents this wonder-some method to learn this classical ancient language. And in just three months, on August 14, 1803, Friedrich lets his brother August Wilhelm know: “I worked through Sanskrit uninterruptedly and now I have achieved a sound fundament. I have by now at least a hand high Manuscripts there which I copied. Now I am occupied in copying the 2nd encyclopaedia. Writing Sanskrit daily for 3–4 hours and another one or two hours to work through with Hamilton; and whenever in the evening I felt like it, I had still work for 2–3 hours.”

We try to understand the procedure. Friedrich von Schlegel made handwritten copies of Sanskrit texts and worked them through with Alexander Hamilton who seemingly knew the characters a little better. How did it function? How could it function? “Scholars” of our time do not explain it to us. They just assert. ***** As already said, the Schlegels had to sublet furnished rooms. Thus, something like a “flat sharing community” emerged. And Alexander Hamilton was there. This is just imponderability of life! We know, again from a letter of Friedrich to his brother August Wilhelm dated

November 26, 1803: “I live now quite pleasantly here – as pleasant as it can be abroad. Since several months Hamilton lives with me, who was my teacher for Sanskrit; also Hagemann, a young Hanoverian, who is not only proficient in Greek and Arabic, but also knows a lot of and very thoroughly Persian, is our house mate. In addition there are three young men from Cologne taking private lessons from me. Thus I have a pleasant society in the house.” The three inhabitants from Cologne were: Sulpiz and Melchior Boisserée as well as Johann Baptist Bertram. “From the Schlegel–circle” there is

also a mention in the autobiography of Sulpiz Boisserée: “The house community at Schlegel’s included, beside the great expert of Sanskrit, A. Hamilton, a small German colony; to which belonged the ten years old son of Mrs. Schlegel, Phillip Veit, a young philologist Hagemann from Hanover who studied Sanskrit too, we three friends from Cologne and Mrs. von Hastfer from Berlin who had come to Paris with Mrs. von Genlis and was editing the French Miscellanea for Cotta in Tuebingen. Usually only Hagemann and Mrs. von Hastfer joined us at the table.”

Friedrich von Schlegel was learning Persian from Antoine Léonard de Chèzy. Louis Mathieu Langlès brings Alexander Hamilton and the Schlegels together. Alexander Hamilton starts living with the Schlegels. Helmine von Hastfer lives there also. Soon she was to marry Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Friedrich von Schlegel learns Sanskrit from Alexander Hamilton from May to November 1803. The Schlegels leave Paris at the end of April 1804. Friedrich von Schlegel publishes the book: On the language and the wisdom of the Indians, Heidelberg 1808. Our impression is, he would have written this book even if he had not met Alexander Hamilton. This book will remain his only contribution to

“Indology”. However a significant one. Alexander Hamilton became famous because of this book. His brother August Wilhelm (1767–1845) was also inspired by it. ***** And: Those who actually had spread Sanskrit in Europe, Antoine Léonard de Chézy and Franz Bopp claimed to have mastered the Sanskrit language without ever listening to the original sound of the language, without ever seeing the original gestures of the people while reciting the texts. On top of it, they also said that they taught the Sanskrit language themselves – who knows how. These two persons, who are known to

have spread a language named Sanskrit, could at best learn the alphabets and composition of the letters in words and only on papers in writing. They did not care nor had any opportunity to be in India. The only person who got an opportunity to listen to the sound of Sanskrit, under the assumption Alexander Hamilton could pronounce the words in “Sanskrit”, was Friedrich von Schlegel, he writes a book in 1808 and then exits from the scene. He does not teach anybody “Sanskrit”. These “scholars” want us to believe that they just turned to Sanskrit texts and could read and understand. The characters were still unknown to them.

These “scholars” must have been suffering from dementia or even worse. They did not remember their laborious efforts of learning their own vernacular. But, as we mentioned earlier, the first four Sanskrit grammar guides in English were available in Paris: by missionary William Carey (1804), by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1805), by Charles Wilkins (1808) and by senior merchant H. P. Forster (1810). Now we know how a language called Sanskrit, is brought to and spread in Europe. Is it still the original Sanskrit and not a kind of “Pidgin Sanskrit”? We must admit that we are extremely confused. “Pidgin Sanskrit” would mean just badly

articulated Sanskrit. We understand that it was much worse. ***** Now we come down from Alexander Hamiltion, Friedrich von Schlegel, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz Bopp, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Hermann Brockhaus to Friedrich Maximilian Müller. None of them had learnt the Sanskrit language. We come down to those wonder-some years from 1803 to 1844. How much “Sanskrit” Friedrich Maximilian Müller could have learnt from Hermann Brockhaus at Leipzig? He attended courses only up to the end of the summer term, i.e., till July 1843.

The alphabets of the language called Sanskrit, some Texts in Sanskrit original, their translated versions Persian, Arabic and English, a few rudimentary grammar books were available in Germany. Nothing more. For Friedrich Maximilian Müller it was less. He did not have access to the English language. He might have read Friedrich von Schlegel’s book: On the language and the wisdom of the Indians, Heidelberg 1808. He did not mention to have read this book. Friedrich Maximilian Müller is done at Leipzig University. He goes to Berlin: “My wish to go to Berlin arose partly

from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling.” Franz Bopp is considered to be the pope of Sanskrit in Europe. In this chapter we have documented our first run to ascertain how much of “Sanskrit” was available in Germany that could be learnt at most by Friedrich Maximilian Müller. We shall have to continue our search to find out how, when, by whom the Sanskrit language is brought to Europe and which Sanskrit language does actually arrive to Europe in our later chapters in due course. Looking a little ahead, we have also dealt with “scholars” of our time who

wanted us to believe that Alexander Hamilton brings Sanskrit from India to Paris in 1803. We know by now whatever these “scholars” wanted us to believe on, about and of the Sanskrit language does not corresponds to facts. These are just myths. No, it is worse. These are just deliberate lies. As logical continuation of our search, we shall have to accompany Friedrich Maximilian Müller to Berlin in his quest to learn the Sanskrit language. We must ascertain here that he does not acquire any of the qualifications at Leipzig University that will justify his deliberations in his book published in 1859: A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT

LITERATURE SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS.

We can wait and watch where and how Friedrich Maximilian Müller acquires those qualifications.

CHAPTER 6

WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN LEARN AT BERLIN UNIVERSITY? For reasons we do not know yet Friedrich Maximilian Müller is unable to continue his studies at Leipzig University after the end of SS 1843, i.e. after July 1843. We recall his letter to Theodor Fontane dated September, 1843, reproduced by Georgina Max Müller without giving us the day: “Dear Fontane,—I can well imagine that you have often cursed me not a

little as I gave no sign of life for such a long time; but Morbus excusat hominem, and I will add, Nisi homo excusat morbum I hope you have carried on your Latin studies so far as to comprehend the deep meaning of these words; and if a human heart still beats in your breast, you must pity me, poor wretch, for having spent nearly the whole vacation in a nervous fever, so that I must stay almost the whole of next term here in Leipzig. It is ill-luck, you will agree. Well, one could almost despair, but where's the good of it? I have quietly unpacked my books and things again, and sit in Reichel's Garden, up three flights, up which I have to climb with

many gasps. I am in Leipzig incognito, for I had already paid my farewell visits everywhere, and altogether feel no inclination for society.” In his heart, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is already on the way to Berlin. In “My Autobiography” Max Müller lets us know on page 153 (highlighted by us): “My wish to go to Berlin arose partly from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling. My inclination towards philosophy had become stronger and stronger; I had

my own ideas about the mythological as a necessary form of ancient philosophy, and when I saw that old philosopher had advertised his lectures or lecture on mythology, I could not resist, and went to Berlin in 1844.” We are too simple-minded to be able to overlook the contradiction in these lines. Is he in love with “Sanskrit”, or has he fallen in love with philosophical discourses, or more so in mythology? We remember the lines as well in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller (highlighted by us): “For a time I thought of becoming a philosopher, and that sounded so

grand that the idea of preparing for a mere schoolmaster, teaching Greek and Latin, seemed to me more and more too narrow a sphere. Soon, however, while dreaming of a chair of philosophy at a German University, I began to feel that I must know something special, something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian”. Therefore we are unable to accept the assertion of Max Müller that Friedrich Maximilian Müller was “in love with Sanskrit”, at least not before his arrival in Berlin. Not to talk about before he began his university studies. We find

indications that Friedrich Maximilian Müller gradually developed a distance to classical “philology” and was in search of other “philological” areas like Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian and not English, French, Italian and Spanish, if we trust Max Müller. We shall keep our eyes wide open to identify indications leading to the conclusion that he had decided to study thoroughly “Sanskrit” only. For that purpose, he was yet to start learning the Sanskrit language thoroughly. We must ascertain that he had not really begun learning the Sanskrit language at Leipzig. We know also, he could not have learnt the Sanskrit language at Leipzig

University. We refer to our last chapter. We know that as late as 1844 Friedrich Maximilian Müller could not have inhaled much more than a scent of “Sanskrit” from Hermann Brockhaus at Leipzig. Therefore, he goes to Berlin. In logical continuation of our search, we shall have to accompany Friedrich Maximilian Müller to Berlin in his quest to learn. We can wait and watch. As simple-minded searchers for facts we try to put ourselves in the situation of Friedrich Maximilian Müller, who comes to the city of Berlin for the first time in his young life. He fails to acquire any academic degree in philology at Leipzig University though he officially

studied there for six semesters. His scholarship for poor students gets almost exhausted. He takes admission at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin as a student of theology. We are genuinely puzzled. Why in the Faculty of Theology? Max Müller told us that Friedrich Maximilian Müller went to Berlin as he desired “to make the acquaintances of “Schelling”. This “Schelling” is none else than Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775 –1854), 69 years old in 1844 and he does not teach in the faculty of theology. He teaches in the faculty of philosophy. He had and has nothing to do with “Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian”.

We are just dumfounded. In the summer term of 1844 Friedrich Maximilian Müller is 20 and half years old. How should he have developed “a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling”? A remarkable choice of words, isn’t it? There is no indication that he reads in Schelling’s books while passing his last six months at Leipzig: “I am in Leipzig incognito, for I had already paid my farewell visits everywhere, and altogether feel no inclination for society.” We remember also his “Collegien Buch”. He wished initially to attend only three lectures in SS 1844 at Leipzig: 1

Greek

and

Latin

Seminary

Hermann & Klotze 2 Elementa Persica Fleischer 3 Rig-veda Hermann Brockhaus No lecture on philosophy was envisaged! No indication in his letter to Theodor Fontane that he is engaged reading Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. It is difficult to discern as well why Friedrich Maximilian Müller has been in hurry to leave Leipzig. It has remained in darkness. ***** No questions so far in this regard, no answers. We review a few hard facts that have built Friedrich Maximilian’s

character and personality. It begins at Anhalt-Dessau: 1. Wilhelm Müller is 27 years old in 1821 when he enters into a lovematch marriage with Adelheid Basedow, who is then 21 years old. She belongs to a more prominent family than these “Müllers” in Anhalt-Dessau. Wilhelm Müller is far below the social standing of the family Basedow. The Basedows do not approve this marriage. Relative social isolation follows for the newly married couple, later also for the two kids, Auguste, and Friedrich Maximilian.

2. Wilhelm Müller dies suddenly. Adelheide depends on a meagre pension. The Duke of AnhaltDessau grants the widow the yearly sum of 100 thalers as long as she remains a widow and till her son has completed his twentyfirst year, and thereafter for her life the sum of 50 thalers. Adelheide has to rear up the kids shifting to a ground-floor-flat in a tiny house. 3.

The childhood of Friedrich Maximilian is hard, sad, uneventful, marked by poverty. He suffers from severe chronic headaches from his early

childhood. We remember: “My childhood at home was often very sad. My mother, who was left a widow at twenty-eight with two children, my sister and myself, was heart-broken.”...“As far back as I can remember I was a martyr to headaches. No doctor could help me, no one seemed to know the cause. It was a migraine, and though I watched carefully I could not trace it to any fault of mine. The idea that it came from overwork was certainly untrue. It came and went, and if it was one day on the right side it was always the next time on the left, even though I was free from it

sometimes for a week or a fortnight, or even longer. It was strange also that it seldom lasted beyond one day, and that I always felt particularly strong and well the day after I had been prostrate. For prostrate I was, and generally quite unable to do anything. I had to lie down and try to sleep. After a good sleep I was well, but when the pain had been very bad I found that sometimes the very skin of my forehead had peeled off. In this way I often lost two or three days in a week and as my work had to be done somehow, it was often done anyhow, and I was scolded

and punished, really without any fault of mine own.” 4. A radical positive break comes in his life however when he is 12 years old. A friend of late Wilhelm Müller, one Professor Carus at Leipzig, is ready to take care for him. His son Victor is of the same age. Max Müller writes, we remember: “It was certainly a poor kind of armour in which I set out of Dessau. My mother, devoted as she was to me, had judged rightly that it was best for me to be with other boys and under the supervision of a man. I had been somewhat spoiled by

her passionate love, and also by her passionate severity in correcting the ordinary naughtiness of a boy. So having risen from form to form in the school at Dessau, I was sent, at the age of twelve, to Leipzig, to live in the house of Professor Carus and attend the famous Nicolai-Schule with his son, who was of the same age as myself and who likewise wanted a companion. It was thought that there would be a certain emulation between us, and so, no doubt there was, though we always remained the best friends.”

5. He leaves, however, the affluent household of Prof. Carus, because: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government.” He does not get back to the household of Professor Carus. It is just not a temporary move to Zerbst to pass his school final. It must have been prefixed. Mother Adelheide had shifted to Leipzig with her daughter before Friedrich Maximilian gets his

school final at Zerbst in 1841. Friedrich Maximilian will get a scholarship for poor students of monthly 15 thalers for four years. We have not found any reasons for why he did not return and stayed with his friend Victor. Whatsoever. 6. We recall Max Müller’s statement on page 112 in the autobiography: “In order to enable me to go to the University, my mother and sister moved to Leipzig and kept house for me during all the time I was there – that is two years a half”, distorts facts. It is not important to find out the causes,

but to ascertain that Friedrich Maximilian falls back in poverty. Staying in the household of Professor Carus and studying together with Victor Carus would have given additional chances to learn than only on the basis of his scholarship. Georgina Max Müller offers on her page 17 rather unconvincing explanations: “During his time at the University, Max saw but little of his old friend Victor Carus. Dr. Carus had married again, and his house was in a part of Leipzig distant from that where Max Müller lived, and as the friends were studying totally different

subjects they never met in the lecture-rooms.“ 7. He is poverty stricken again when he begins at Leipzig University. He is unable to attend many lectures. “The number of lectures on various subjects which I attended is quite amazing, and I should have attended still more if the honorarium had not frightened me away.” 8. We remember as well Max Müller reporting: “I must say at once that when I matriculated at Leipzig, in the summer of 1841, I was still very young and very immature. I had determined to study

philology, chiefly Greek and Latin, but the fare spread out by the professors was much too tempting.” But soon he withstands and we come to know: “I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade.” 9. He develops an interest in philosophy also. He concludes that: “I began to feel that I must know something special,

something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian.” He does not see any scope to continue to learn these languages at Leipzig University, which is not a centre for learning “oriental” languages and even less to learn the Sanskrit language. 10. In September 1843, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is almost completing his 20 years of age. He is out of his studies at Leipzig since the end of the summer term in 1843. “...you must pity me, poor wretch, for having spent

nearly the whole vacation in a nervous fever, so that I must stay almost the whole of next term here in Leipzig. It is ill-luck, you will agree”, he writes to his friend Theodor Fontane. 11. Obviously, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is done with Leipzig University. There he is unable to earn an academic degree. He is still in search of an academic field suiting his interests. What is he really after? Does he explain his running away from Leipzig to his mother? Or does he just belie his mother about his mental indecisiveness regarding his

studies? 12. Max Müller has written a chapter titled “University” covering Leipzig. He refers a lot to Sanskrit. But he does not refer to the available Sanskrit grammars in English since 1804, or to the first Sanskrit-English-dictionary published at Kolkata by Horace Hayman Wilson in 1819. The reason is simple. Friedrich Maximilian Müller doesn’t read English. The Nicolai-Schule teaches Latin, Greek and vernacular only. The so-called modern languages were not taught at Leipzig University. He can only

read books written by Friedrich von Schlegel and by Franz Bopp in German on and about the Sanskrit language. As we know, Franz Bopp, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Hermann Brockhaus knew English. ***** These hard facts enable us to understand the mental disposition of Friedrich Maximilian at Leipzig in 1843/1844. He does not find much sense to try for an academic degree at Leipzig University. There he saw “no ruins (left) on which to try one’s own spade.” He hopes to find “virgin soil left to the plough” somewhere: “I began to feel that I must

know something special, something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian”. Moving to Berlin in search of “virgin soil left to the plough,” is rather a desperate adventure. Berlin is far more expensive than Leipzig. He will have to look after himself and and live on his 15 thalers a month. Adelheid and Auguste would not be there as it was in 1841. We read Georgina Max Müller on her page 16: “Max Müller joined the University of Leipzig in the Summer Term, 1841; his mother and sister left Dessau and moved to Leipzig to make a home for him and lessen expenses.”

At Leipzig Adelheid, Auguste and Friedrich Maximilian managed the household with 15 + 8 thalers a month. The situation has now changed. Auguste gets married in February 1844 to (We read the version of Max Müller, page112, “My Autobiography”): “My sister enjoyed what little there was of society, whereas I kept sternly aloof from it. She was much admired, and soon became engaged to a young doctor, Dr. A. Krug, the son of the famous Professor of philosophy at Leipzig, whose works, particularly his Dictionary of Philosophy, hold a distinguished place in the history of German philosophy.”

We do not miss the diction with “Dr”. and “Professor” and “distinguished”. Auguste moves with her husband to Chemnitz. If Friedrich Maximilian would continue at Leipzig University, there would be a financial improvement for Friedrich Maximilian and his mother. But he decides for Berlin. What can Adelheid Müller do alone at Leipzig? We remember the terms of Adelheid Müller’s small pension: “The yearly sum of 100 thalers as long as she remains a widow till her son has completed his twenty-first year, and thereafter for her life the sum of fifty thalers.” Friedrich Maximilian has developed a

selfish character. He might have calculated, when he is 21, Adelheid’s pension will be reduced to 50 thalers. Then he will have to assist her. Especially, after those four years of his scholarship for poor students of the Anhalt-government come to an end. Whatsoever, it has been agreed upon that mother Adelheid will live with the young couple at Chemnitz, while Friedrich Maximilian will try to manage with 15 thalers up to the end of 1844 in Berlin. So there is no future prospective that Adelheid and Friedrich Maximilian to move together to Berlin. To live in the household of newly married daughter and the son-in-law is not very pleasant for Adelheid. But there is obviously no

other way out. Friedrich Maximilian Müller will have to manage his stay in Berlin solely on his monthly scholarship of 15 thalers, unless he earns extra money offering private lessons. He never thought of giving private lessons at Leipzig. He preferred to enjoy his student life drinking beer and smoking cigars in the “Burschenschaft” with the scions of well-to-do people. This significant fact we keep in mind. Max Müller does never refer to it. Georgina Max Müller does and put it in a different context. On page 20 of her book we read: “Max had long felt an ardent wish to go for a year to Berlin to study

Sanskrit under Bopp, but more especially Philosophy under Schelling. He wanted also to examine the collection of Sanskrit MSS. which the King of Prussia had just bought in England from the executors of Robert Chambers. … Max Müller had his scholarship for one year more. … How Max Müller, when away from his mother, was able to live, is certainly a puzzle, but living then in Germany was extraordinarily cheap.” Our attention is drawn to the second sentence of Georgina Max Müller: “He wanted also to examine the collection of Sanskrit MSS. which the King of Prussia had just bought in England

from the executors of Robert Chambers.” Examine the collection of Sanskrit Manuscripts? What does it mean? What exactly should this sentence communicate? We recall that Friedrich Maximilian attended at Leipzig University one grammar-course each for Hebrew, Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian. These are three months courses. How many years are needed to learn the grammar of vernacular, Latin and Greek? Well, we apologise for looking ahead and withdraw our question for the time being. He also attended four seminars offered by Hermann Brockhaus on texts

originally written in Sanskrit then translated in many languages. At most, Hermann Brockhaus could teach him the Sanskrit alphabets, rudiments of Sanskrit grammar and discuss a few translated stories. He himself was unable to read the Sanskrit language, neither his teachers. So, how should Friedrich Maximilian “examine the collection of Sanskrit MSS. which the King of Prussia had just bought in England from the executors of Robert Chambers”? Max Müller does not mention this “desire” in his “My Autobiography”. We leave this issue for the time being with a simple question: How could Georgina Max Müller come to know: “He wanted also to examine

the collection of Sanskrit MSS. which the King of Prussia had just bought in England from the executors of Robert Chambers”? Friedrich Maximilian Müller hears from Hermann Brockhaus that Franz Bopp was not only the German pioneer in “Sanskrit”. Franz Bopp was recognized in the whole of Europe as the topmost expert in “Sanskrit”. He founded also “sciences of language”. Friedrich Maximilian Müller must have felt that all he could have learnt from Hermann Brockhaus he had already learnt. That was not enough. Therefore, he moves to Berlin to learn more of Sanskrit from Franz Bopp. But why

does he get enrolled in the faculty of theology? Why all on a sudden theology? Max Müller did not tell us what Friedrich Maximilian does learn at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. Surprisingly there is no chapter on Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s stay at Berlin in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller. This indicates that the stay in Berlin was considered by Max Müller to have been absolutely useless. The Fourth Chapter was titled: University. There we read on pages 152/53, “My Autobiography”these few lines (highlighted by us): “My wish to go to Berlin arose partly

from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make acquaintance of Schelling. My inclination towards philosophy had become stronger and stronger; I had my own ideas about the mythological as a necessary form of ancient philosophy, and when I saw that the old philosopher had advertised his lectures or lecture on mythology, I could not resist, and went to Berlin in 1844. I must say at once that Professor Bopp, though he was extremely kind to me, was at that time, if not old – he was only fiftythree – very i firm (infirm?). In his lectures he simply read his Comparative Grammar with a

magnifying glass, and added very little that was new. He lent me some manuscripts which he had copied in Latin in his younger days, but I could not get much help from him when I came to really difficult passages. This, I confess, puzzled me at this time, for I looked on every professor as omniscient. The time comes, however, when we learn that even at fifty-three a man may have forgotten certain things, nay, may have let many books and new discoveries even in his own subject pass by, because he has plenty to do with his own studies.” As usual, these lines are followed by a

lecture ending with the lines on page 156: “We must judge a man by what he has done – by his own original work. There are many scholars, and very useful they are in their own way, but if their books are examined, one easily finds the stores from which they borrowed their materials. They may add some notes of their own and even some corrections of the author from whom they have borrowed most ; but at the end where is the fresh ore that they have raised ; where is the gold they have extracted and coined? There are cases where the original worker is quite forgotten, whereas the realities flourish. Well, facts are facts, whether known or not known, and the triumphal

chariot of truth has to be dragged along by many hands and many shoulders.” This is all what has been communicated by Max Müller regarding Franz Bopp in this context. We must confess, it is tough to control our temptation to comment these lines here and now. Instead, we first ascertain that all these could not have been formulated by Friedrich Maximilian Müller at Berlin. Secondly, we must ascertain that he fails to add anything to his rudimentary knowledge of the Sanskrit language at Berlin. Thirdly, we must refer to the beginning of the said lecture by Max Müller on page 153:

“We remember the old story of the professor who, charged by a young and rather impertinent student with not knowing this or that, replied: ‘Sir, I have forgotten more than you ever knew.’ And so it is indeed. Human nature and human memory are very strong during youth and manhood, but even at fifty there is with many people a certain decline of mental vigour that tell chiefly on the memory. Things are not exactly forgotten, but they do not turn up at the right time. They just leave a certain knowledge of where the missing information can be found ; they have also a kind of feeling that the ground is not quite safe and that

we must no longer trust entirely to our memory. In one respect this feeling is very useful, for instead of writing down anything, trusting to our memory as we used to do, we feel it necessary to verify many things which formerly were perfectly clear and certain in our memory without such reference to books. “I remember being struck with the same thing in the case of Professor Wilson, the well –known Oxford Professor of Sanskrit. He was kind enough to read with me, and I certainly was often puzzled, not only by what he knew, but also by what he had forgotten.”

Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s encounter with Franz Bopp must have been extremely disappointing, if we trust Max Müller. There is no mention of his encounter with the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling in “My Autobiography”, nor in his Auld Lang Syne, published also by Longmans, Green, and Co., London and Bombay in 1898. What had happened? We shall deal with “Professor Wilson”, he is Horace Hayman Wilson, the compiler of the first Sanskrit-English dictionary, in due course. On page 157 Max Müller begins his Fifth Chapter titled “Paris”. *****

We are through with Max Müller’s memories of Berlin, but not with the life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller at Berlin. At this stage, we get access to another source of authentic documents, his letters to his mother, written in German handwriting. These are kept as a “special collection” in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Adelheid Müller had kept the letters of her son out of sheer affections. She did not know that these letters would become important to setting parts of the “history” right. These letters in German handwriting kept by an affectionate mother who lived in Chemnitz should have been kept in the

archives in Germany, in Dessau or in Chemnitz or in Leipzig. The archives in Germany do not keep even copies of this “special collection” in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University. Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not care to keep the letters of his affectionate mother to him. He has kept so many other letters of much less dear persons. On the other hand, Adelheid Müller did care to preserve the letters written by her son. What does it indicate? We refrain from drawing conclusions for others. We are apprehensive whether this “special collection” is a complete collection of letters written by Friedrich

Maximilian to his mother. Let it be how it is. Presently we try to put together the scattered information on: What does Friedrich Maximilian learn at Berlin University? In addition, we consult the writings of Georgina Max Müller as well, which are naturally less authentic and thus less reliable. Friedrich Maximilian Müller has a tight budget for his stay in Berlin. Being at Berlin, he feels urged to communicate with his mother as often as possible. She is the only trustworthy person in the world of Friedrich Maximilian. He knows also all about her affections, her hopes and her aspiration concerning him of her financial hardships as well.

We are surprised to note that he often posts his letters to her without putting on stamps, which costs for the mother at the other end a little more. Occasionally she sends stamps or money for him along with her letter. His financial hardship in different facets is an issue in every letter of him. At his age, he knows exactly that his mother’s budget is tighter than his own. We take a note of this aspect. We feel that Friedrich Maximilian does not consider his mother’s financial predicament. On the covering envelop he writes either to “Ihrer hochwohlgeborenen, der Frau Hofräthin Müller, geborene von Basedow“, or to “Frau Hofräthin A.

Müller, geborene von Basedow”. Both modes of addressing throw strange lights on the character of Friedrich Maximilian. A literal translation of “hochwohlgeborene” would be “high well born”. We translate the term rather as “born aristocratic”. The title “Hofräthin” indicates either she holds herself an honorary title for civil servants or the wife of a person who holds that title for civil servants. We recall that father Wilhelm Müller became the Librarian in the small Duchy Anhalt-Dessau and as such also a “Hofrat”. These two exaggerations are eventually excusable as trifles.

It is absolutely unusual to mention the maiden name of the mother or of any female person on a letter-envelope. Why does he do it? As mentioned earlier, “Müller” is a very ordinary name in Germany. Does he do it to upgrade the social status of his mother being a simple Frau (Mrs.) Adelheid Müller? Hardly likely! Being grownup and having academic experience he knows, addressing letters to his mother in this manner can only impress the postal worker. So, why does he address letters to his mother in this manner? We apologise looking a little ahead. All along his life, Friedrich Maximilian Müller suffers because of his humble

and poverty-stricken social background. We remember also his childhood. He has to develop strategies to compensate his own inferiority complex. However, it does not appear to us to be sufficient of an excuse. To write on a letter-envelope “A. Müller, geborene von Basedow” cannot be neglected by some psychological hypothesis. It is definitely an accountable swindle as it with his “Doktor Max Müller”, which we shall come across. In previous chapters, we couldn’t ascertain whether Max Müller was unable to differentiate between fantasy and reality or Friedrich Maximilian had evolved to swindler as Max Müller.

Now we get another indication that Friedrich Maximilian was at least evolving to a swindler. In our second chapter, we quoted an exemplary paragraph on the family background of Max Müller that has remained undisputed until today. We recall: “Max Müller's mother was Adelheid, elder daughter of President von Basedow, Prime Minister of the Duchy of Dessau. She was very small, but very beautiful, clever and lively, and had a fine contralto voice; and it was from her that Max Müller inherited his intense love of music. Frau Hofrathin Muller was a highly cultivated woman, understanding

English, French, and Italian perfectly. She was a woman of an eager, even passionate temperament, and her children evidently suffered early from this, as Wilhelm Müller's letters are full of warnings to her not to punish too severely, and not to expect too much from her children (babies of four and five when their father died). Her father, President von Basedow, was himself the son of a man famous in Germany in his day, the pedagogue Basedow, the forerunner of Pestalozzi and Fröbel.” This is the second paragraph of the very first chapter written by Georgina Max Müller in: THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE FRIEDRICH

MAX MÜLLER, EDITED BY HIS WIFE, in

two volumes, here in volume I, Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Parternoster Row, London, New York and Bombay 1902. We recall, Georgina Adelaide Grenfell, born 1835, married Friedrich Maximilian Müller in 1859. ***** We apologise again to looking a little ahead. Friedrich Maximilian studied philology for several semesters at a university. Surprisingly is the style and his choice of words in the letters of to her mother are very ordinary containing many stereotyped flat phrases. The diction is childish, and the contents, often enough, scatter-brained. His

handwriting is acceptably formed. He makes most extensive use of space on letter-papers. He begins in a normal way. When the page is full, he uses all empty spaces on the page rather unsystematically. It is a clear and comprehensible sign of his povertystricken budget. But it indicates also carelessness and a disorderly mind. In the beginning he writes frequently. At a later phase, he writes even less than monthly. In his first letter from Berlin dated April 15, 1844, he announces his arrival and reports about his activities and on his experiences after he left Chemnitz. He was in Dessau and had taken many troubles to get a scholarship for his studies at Berlin. He stayed there

for days. That is why he hurried to write to his mother even before he had rented a room for his stay at Berlin. He describes how awfully he was “kept day after day” waiting there. Though he writes “everything was very pleasant at Dessau”, nothing was really pleasant there for him. He spent a lot of time to meeting “various people at home”. He could then meet the “Chamberlain”, from whom he hoped to hear something definite as to the “Leopold Stipendium”. A chamberlain is a title associated with the household of the sovereign. Unfortunately thechamberlain gave him no hope, nor did “Herr Bernhorst”, nor Herr “Morgenstern”.

We are not familiar with these names. They must have been important officials in the administration of the Duchy Anhalt-Dessau. We stumbled over a sentence in between, rather out of way: “They were all very kind and accepted the Hitopadesha”. What was it, “Hitopadesha”? We shall explain our mishap and try to answer all that goes with it in a little while. Immediately thereafter, he continues his report to the mother narrating about his exercises and experiences in Dessau. “Bernhorst came personally to me and informed me that the Duke knew that I was in town and that he would receive

me.” He went to meet the Duke, but was received by Anhalt-Dessau’s Pater Patriae, “who talked to me for a long time, but of the “Stipendium” or of any other financial helps not a syllable.” Then he went to Fraulein Rath, who told him that he was to see the Duchess the next day. “She (Fraulein Rath) too was very gracious and kind, enquired why I did not go to England. I told her everything most frankly but it produced no result.” He does not write what “everything most frankly” meant. Therefore, we do not know either. Then he met Advocate Richter, who gave him the “very disheartening” news that most probably the payment of

his scholarship for poor students from Anhalt-Dessau-Government will be stopped after the current semester. However, he was to be informed officially in due course. Advocate Richter did not pass any remark about his precarious financial predicament. All these he writes to his mother to convince her that he has tried his most and that he spared himself no pains. Unfortunately, totally unsuccessfully. We wonder that he did not meet his firstgrade uncle who was the “Prime Minister” of Anhalt-Dessau as Max Müller repeatedly mentioned in his “My Autobiography”. Friedrich Maximilian obviously does not even try to meet his

uncle who was then head of the administration of the Duchy. What does it mean? Does it mean that the biography of Friedrich Maximilian Müller and the “My Autobiography” written by Max Müller are two different things? We shall keep watch on this aspect. All these experiences he discloses to his mother, who is helpless as well, and states in the letter that he must see now how he can help himself. “I have drawn fifty thalers from the savings bank. Then I left Anhalt-Dessau at two o'clock, and arrived in Berlin at about seven.” He went directly to “uncle and aunt Hake” who offered him to stay with them as long as he liked, whilst he

looks for a nice room at Berlin. He assures his mother again that he has done all that he could do and that he did it most conscientiously. Next, he is busy looking for a suitable room “yesterday and today” and he sees “at least forty”. He is then “very tired with all this running about, and longing for a quiet, settled life”. He does not want to pay any visits until he was settled, “but when will that be”? This is the beginning of his stay at Berlin in deep frustration and large helplessness. *****

We have read his letter more than once. We must confess that this letter raises our expectation to be able to find authentic answers to many of our queries concerning the life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. This letter is a document. It is not just a narrated account by whomsoever. We miss three important aspects in this letter to comprehend the mental disposition of Friedrich Maximilian. In material terms, he finds himself in a hopeless situation in Berlin unless he gets financial support from somewhere. He meets several intermediary persons belonging to the administration at Anhalt-Dessau, but he does not get

access to the Duke, to the Duchess, to his uncle. Does he try to explain himself why it was so? This is the first aspect. Does he offer certificates and recommendations of his academic mentors belonging to Leipzig University to all those persons he met in support of his plea for a new scholarship, that “Leopold Stipendium”? There is no mention. This is the second aspect. Does he ever analyse his failure in studies at Leipzig University? This is the third aspect. He does not even touch these aspects in his first letter to his mother from Berlin in April 1844. We must consider these aspects for our

judgement. We have not found any indication so far that Friedrich Maximilian learnt self-reflection and self-criticism. It was not his “fault” what happened in his early childhood. This was precarious. But he was fortunate enough to get a chance, getting the privilege of being in one of the best schools in Germany, the “Nicolai Schule” at Leipzig. We are unable to judge whether he just missed his chance by negligence or by his intellectual ability. The fact remains, he was unable to make use of this privilege. We remember also that he had to take his school final certificate from a school in Zerbst. He however obtained a scholarship for poor students. He could

not earn a scholarship on merit. We are apprehensive whether Friedrich Maximilian ever reflected over what all these meant? A scholarship for poor students demands from the holder to focus solely on his academic studies, on acquiring qualifications and on earning certificates for future occupational career. And not indulging in the usual academic life of privileged people. For whatever reasons, Friedrich Maximilian did not acquire enough knowledge to sit for any academic exam. He failed to earn a single academic degree at Leipzig. Was it due to lack of interest? Was it due to his inability to learn systematically? We do not know. He just

escapes from Leipzig University after consuming the most of his scholarship for poor students and then makes a pilgrimage to Berlin in search of salvation. His hope to be considered for a “Leopold Stipendium” remains unfulfilled. He is unable to prove his scholarship. He is unable to offer recommendations from any of his academic teachers of Leipzig University whilst trying to get that “Leopold Stipendium” for poor scholars. Instead he offered something which is expressed in that one almost fleeting sentence in the letter to his mother: “They were all very kind, and accepted the Hitopadesha.”

So, he offered “Hitopadesha” as an adequate substitute of academic certificates and recommendations as support to obtain “Leopold Stipendium for poor scholars”. Irrespective of the possibility that this sentence was just to console his mother, we have to deal with “Hitopadesha” and what goes with it. ***** “Hitopadesha” is an ancient collection of short episodes referring to real life, carrying universal social values and massages for all human kinds. It is a short version of Panchatantra, which was widely circulated in ancient Bharatavarsa. Bharatavarsa was a cultural entity, much larger than today’s

borders of India. Panchatantra means practical application of acquired knowledge in five chapters. Ancient sages compiled their knowledge in the Vedas. In the beginning Panchatantra is a spoken version. Even the Vedic letters were not yet created. Vedas are books on science. The scholars belonging to the prevailing culture have distorted the Vedas. Did they do it ignorantly or deliberately? It does not matter. To deepen this aspect we recommend the book “Before the Beginning and after the End. Beyond the Universe of Physics. Rediscovering Ancient Insights”, 568 pages, ISBN 81-7167-450-X, Rupa &

Co., New Delhi 2000, by Rishi Kumar Mishra, a scholar who also belonged to the Vedic culture. His other three volumes also deal with the Vedas. We get back to the knowledge stored in the Vedas. Later this knowledge has been stored in many different media for the forthcoming generations. The scripts have been one of the major transport media after Vedic letters were created. In written modus, Panchatantra has been recorded in many different versions, in many languages and it becomes known in the whole world. We won‘t get into dating acrobatics. Panchatantra is handed down since time immemorial and it has been

translated in numerous “non-Indian” languages. It is said that Panchatantra had reached Europe via Spain in the eleventh century thanks to the Arabs. Versions of Panchatantra existed definitely in Greek, Latin, Spanish, Italian, German, English, Old Slavonic, Czech, and perhaps in other Slavonic languages before 1600. Its range has been from Java to Iceland. The same is valid for Hitopadesa, which was translated in the 6th century AD in Persian. Thereafter Hitopadesa has been translated many times under many different names also in different European languages. The Fables of Pilpai is factually Hitopadesa. So it is

with The Moral Philosophy of Doni, published in 1570. For those who are not accustomed to remote periods, here is one less remote reference: Hitopadesha (sanskrit-bengali-english) by Lakhshami Narayan Nyayalankar. Published in Kolkata in 1830, printed in “shastra prakasha press, calcutta”. The episodes in Hitopadesha have always been recognized, also in the “modern times” as priceless treasures of morality and knowledge. These are narrated in a logical and clear way. They do not propagate moral behind the episodes. Moral is just revealed by simplicity and by logic to young and old, to children and to parents. Sages of

Bharatavarsa, scientists who “saw” processes in nature and societies, in macro and micro cosmos, seerscientists, did not have any urge to sell their acquired knowledge. For them knowledge belonged to humanity. For them knowledge was never a commodity. They were not “intellectual prostitutes”. British colonizers began selling ancient knowledge of Bharatavarsa as their own “discovery” and started claiming “copyrights”. Thieves and plunderers like Sir William Jones have founded a culture of theft, of stealing, of plundering unscrupulously. Plagiarism is a minor folly. We shall deal with “intellectual

prostitutes” and Sir William Jones later in due course. ***** It is sheer unbelievable but true that Friedrich Maximilian Müller claimed to have translated “Hitopadesha” from Sanskrit original before 1844. And his claim was not contradicted by Hermann Brockhaus, which reflects what it meant at that time “knowing the Sanskrit language”. On top of it, he helped Friedrich Maximilian Müller to get this German version of “Hitopadesha” published at Leipzig. Hermann Brockhaus was the son of the owner of the publishing house “Brockhaus” at

Leipzig and at Amsterdam. “Brockhaus” is a good address amongst European publishers. This booklet is available in the library at Leipzig University. It has been devoted “to his fatherly friend Professor Carus” and dedicated to Hermann Brockhaus as he owed him everything. We being simple-minded cannot afford to have a short memory. We have not forgotten that in the 3rd semester at the Leipzig University Friedrich Maximilian attended a lecture offered by Hermann Brockhaus under the title: Hitopadesa. This contradiction has not yet been ascertained by any modern scholar belonging to, as we have

characterized, the blond-blue-eyedwhite-Christian culture. As mentioned earlier, we do not belong to the community of modern scholars. This is an example showing vividly how for whatever purpose “scholars” are produced in “the wonder that is this culture”. Hermann Brockhaus does not know the Sanskrit language simply because his academic teacher for Sanskrit, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, did not learn the Sanskrit language. We recall, August Wilhelm von Schlegel had had an opportunity to stay in Paris for a short while in 1813. Paris was then the only place in Europe where the Sanskrit language could be learnt, so it

is said. There he was guided by Franz Bopp to learn the Sanskrit language from Antoine Léonard de Chézy together with him, so it is handed down. We know by now that neither Franz Bopp nor Antoine Léonard de Chézy learnt the Sanskrit language. We cannot get further back than to Antoine Léonard de Chézy again for the simple reason that he didn’t have a teacher at all to teach him the Sanskrit language. He claimed to have learnt the all by himself. The episode with Alexander Hamiltion and Friedrich von Schlegel we can put aside in the present context. We refer to our previous chapter. We remember, in Paris Franz Bopp

stopped going to Antoine Léonard de Chézy because de Chézy was then able to teach the Persian language only. Therefore Franz Bopp had also to learn the Sanskrit language all by himself as he claimed and he, nonetheless, “occupied” the language to spread it not only in Germany as “Sanskrit”. So, two questions inevitably arise as consequence: Which Sanskrit-language August Wilhelm von Schlegel believed to have learnt together with Franz Bopp from Antoine Léonard de Chézy, and which Sanskrit-language could he teach Hermann Brockhaus? Keeping this whole panorama in mind we try to solve the riddle, how Friedrich

Maximilian Müller could have translated “Hitopadesha” from the Sanskrit original. As a matter of fact, it is not a riddle at all if we simply delete his claim: “from original Sanskrit”. It is a deliberate swindle. “Scholars” in this culture generally practice lies of this quality. We did get a vivid taste of it in our last chapter. And if we are permitted here to take an aside and to look a little ahead we shall get ample examples of swindles of this quality. We would like to introduce a German proverb characterizing not only the German academic culture: “Wer schreibt, der bleibt.” A literary English translation could be: He who writes, remains. It may not sound well. But the fact

prevails. We would rather prefer: Get it printed to get it imprinted. Lies or not, once you get it printed, it is accepted as fact by contemporary and by later born “scholars” belonging to “the wonder that is” this culture. We get back to Friedrich Maximilian Müller, 1844, at Berlin. He has followed the common practice prevailing in this culture. You take a printed copy of a Sanskrit text, at best, in “devanagri letters”, buy available translations in vernacular or in other languages to which you have access, copy them indiscriminately, collate right or wrong, and get it published as your own translation from the original source.

Once printed, who could challenge your claim? This is how “rights” are established. We have challenged Friedrich Maximilian Müller proving that he was unable to read Sanskrit texts. He has swindled. We take a note that Friedrich Maximilian Müller did evolve to a swindler par excellence quite young. His claim translating Hitopadesa from the Sanskrit original is a presumptuous presentation of his first “master piece” in notorious charlatanry. ***** We continue sticking to hard facts. Friedrich Maximilian arrives at Berlin

on April 15, 1844. He can stay with a distant aunt, Julie Hake to begin with. He gets admission at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin as a student of theology. He finds soon a room not far away from the university. For the room he has to pay 6 (six) thalers a month. He will have to manage his student life in Berlin with 9 (nine) thalers only. It is not just maintaining his living. Attending courses at the university also costs money. He has to pay for any and every lectures offered by whomsoever at the University. Berlin is a much larger city than Leipzig. To visit people one has either to walk long distances consuming time or take a carriage that costs money. A day has 24

hours. These are factors that we have to take into considerations when we read his letters to his mother or when we read Georgina Max Müller on Friedrich Maximilian. We admit, we have cited examples that have made us apprehensive about the correctness of the presentation of Friedrich Maximilian by Georgina Max Müller. We asked for all letters, kept as “special collection” in the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, written by Friedrich Maximilian to his mother up to 1850. We have not found those letters to his mother, which has been presented by Georgina Max Müller earlier. In her

book, she refers also to a diary of Friedrich Maximilian and reports on his life at Berlin. On page 22 we read: “It is evident from his letters to his mother and his Diary that the early part of his time at Berlin was most agreeable. He went into society more than he had done at Leipzig, and was fortunate in having the entree of several very pleasant houses, chief among which was the house of Hensel the artist, married to Mendelssohn's favourite sister Fanny. The Krügers, connexions of his own (he was also an artist), were very kind to the young student, and he dined there every Sunday, unless he had any other

invitation. His aunt, Julie Hake, also had him to dinner every week. At Berlin, Max Müller began keeping a journal, and continued it fairly regularly till August. He seems to have dined, when not asked out, at a restaurant, where he paid sixpence for his dinner, which he reports as good. He matriculated as a theologian! Soon after, he writes: ‘Worked early, but could not concentrate myself; and adds the same evening, ‘Dreaming’, and a little poetry, and a very little work. I must work more in future.’ A few days later he paid his first visit to the

Library in search of Sanskrit MSS., which he seems to have been unable to see owing to the absence of the head librarian.” Let us accept this report though the sources are beyond our reach. Obviously, “his first visit to the Library in search of Sanskrit MSS.” was more important to Friedrich Maximilian than attending to lectures in theology at the university. Georgina Max Müller presents a letter to his mother that is only approximately dated. Immediately thereafter, she quotes two letters dated May 22nd and May 28th suggesting that the first letter must have been written sometime before May 22, 1844. Let us

read the first letter first with her introduction: “The following letters give his mother a pleasant account of his life: — Translation. May, 1844. “Hensel's house is a delightful resort to me, and she is especially friendly. I go there oftener than I can really spare the time; they are always sending me invitations. I was there last Saturday, and they asked me to dinner the next day. I went at twelve, for a large musical matinee; they sang the choruses of the Antigone. Then I stayed in the garden with the tutor, and we played with Hensel a sort of ninepins; then came dinner,

and they asked me to return in the evening, as Oehlenschlager, the German poet, was coming to them, so I spent nearly the whole day there. I have not played there yet, as she has not asked me to do so, but when I told her I wanted to hire a piano, cheap but not bad, she offered to lend me an English one, on which she used to play. He too is most friendly, and has given himself a great deal of trouble to get leave from the Minister for me to have the MSS. to use in my own room, which I hope will soon be granted. The Hakes too are very kind, and I can always dine there, Mondays and Thursdays. I have called besides on Bopp; Professor Hofer, who will

review my Hitopadesa; Dr. Kuhn, another Sanskritist, to whom Brockhaus recommended me ; Professor Petermann, whose lectures on the history of Oriental Literature I attend; Professor Schott, with whom I learn Persian; and I think everything will go well. I am also going to Schelling, from which my purse suffers. I have not had time to call again on “Bettina.” As friends I have Vogel and Fontane, whom I seldom see except at dinner. At home I only have bread and butter. I drink coffee without milk or sugar. I have just received ten copies of the Griechenlieder; they are very well printed. So you see I do very well

here, and nothing is wanting but my dear little mother. Now write soon, but don't say again you do not like Chemnitz; a contented spirit is happy anywhere. In the Hitopadesa it says: To the man who has leather shoes on, the whole world is covered with leather.” Doesn’t this version of the letter communicate in a well ordered sophisticated style that after reaching Berlin mid-April Friedrich Maximilian gives an account to his mother how nicely he is settling down in Berlin? Optimistic, pleasant and satisfactory? It was not so! This letter is more of a fake. It is correct that Friedrich Maximilian

has written in May 1844 three letters. One in the first half of May, then on 22nd and on 28th. The information given in the faked version presented by Georgina Max Müller is scattered in these three letters. Not at all in a well ordered sophisticated English style. We shall read his original together in a little while. The deliberate manipulation as presented on pages 22-25 in Georgina Max Müller’s book becomes more perfidious in this context. First, she reports in her own words without referring to sources. Between her report and the faked letter, she places two other letters without dates, without indicating

sources. One allegedly written by Theodor Fontane praising Friedrich Maximilian’s very lively activities as a Sanskrit scholar in Berlin to the skies and a translation of a letter allegedly written by Friedrich Maximilian to his mother also without a date. We skip Theodor Fontane’s letter praising Friedrich Maximilian as a Sanskrit scholar in Berlin to the skies that he was not and quote only this second letter along with her introduction that is definitely a fake: “Max Müller had expected great things from Schelling, and in a letter to his mother thus describes his first visit to the great philosopher:—

Translation ' I went to announce myself. He receives people at four o'clock. I had not expected much, for I had heard how he had dismissed Jellinick, but I was more fortunate. I asked him if he would continue to lecture next term on the Philosophy of Revelation, He said he could not decide yet, therefore probably only a private lecture again. Then I spoke to him of my time in Leipzig, of Weiss and Brockhaus, and then we came round to Indian Philosophy. Here he allowed me to tell him a good deal. I especially dwelt on the likeness between Sankhya and his own system, and

remarked how an inclination to the Vedanta showed itself. He asked what we must understand by Vedanta, how the existence of God was proved, how God created the world, whether it had reality. He has been much occupied with Colebrooke's Essays, and he seemed to wish to learn more, as he asked me if I could explain a text. Then he asked where I was living, knew my father as Greek poet and a worker on Homer, and at last dismissed me with " Come again soon," offering to do anything he could for me.'” We skip also commenting the contents in this letter. We mention here only that

Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling (1775 –1854) was 69 years old in 1844. He had and has nothing to do with “Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian. Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not complete his 21 in age yet and knew nothing about “Vedanta”. We shall deal with “Colebrooke's Essays” in due course. This much is for now. He is Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765 – 1837), sent by the East India Company to Kolkata as a “writer” (clerk), when he was 17 years old in 1782. He did not even earn a school certificate. And Friedrich Maximilian Müller is unable to read English. “Colebrooke's Essays” are not translated into German.

Following are the translations presented by Georgina Max Müller: “Translation. May 22. ' Four days in the week I have lectures at eight ; the woman cleans my room, then I stay at home till 1.30, and then dine close here. Then some days I have a lecture at four o'clock, and I am very glad to be living so close to the University, and shall be more so when the real Berlin heat begins.’” “Translation. May 28. ' I have just come from Hensel's. As you see, I am a pretty constant guest.

They are really so good to me, and it is the only house where I feel “you would like to go there”; generally one feels "you must go there." You say, you are glad that I don't work so hard; I can't quite understand that, for I often don't know what I should begin first, when I think of the future and on so much which I still have to do before I can take any rest. ... I do not often see any papers, as the public reading-rooms are so dear; in this respect you are better off in Chemnitz.'” ***** It is a tiresome job getting through the handwritten letters of Friedrich

Maximilian Müller in German original attentively. The handwriting varies according to his mental dispositions. His mind is not organised. It is not only an urge for him to write to his mother regularly, but it is also a duty. His mother is the only person of trust he has. Yet there is always a kind of haste in the letters. Information is wrapped up in stories and rapports. The style of writing is rather childish. And as mentioned earlier, he makes extensive use of space on paper which is dictated by poverty. The script is in old German, prior to the “Sütterling” script. We are on our search for hard facts. It is a tiresome journey to ascertain “what

Friedrich Maximilian Müller actually learns at Berlin”. We have literarily translated his letter, written obviously in the first half of May, keeping his syntax, punctuation and style so that this can be compared with the presentation by Georgina Max Müller on pages 23-24 in her book. “My dear Mother, Quite often I wished to tell you, at least in writing, and certainly you have also wished to hear from me, but this did not work out and we must have to make use of our patience in getting news from each other. Specially the first weeks in Berlin passed rather slowly, day for day I

hoped for the next; wherever I came, they enquired, whether I didn’t have news from you and I had always to say: no, not yet. Also Prowe, whom I expected for so long, did not come and did not come. I was highly delighted on Thursday 2nd May when I was back from Hensels in the evening seeing Prowe there, who had arrived already in the noon and was sleeping on my sofa. He had then to narrate a lot, and began reporting about the inconveniences you had to face, but he didn’t give me a letter till I began to express my distress, then he unpacked your small packet. How much I felt sorry for you to have endured these hours of annoyance.

The beautiful furnitures, now it is all Rokoko and Pompeian’s, renaissance are seemingly no more liked. How I was also delighted for the shoes that are already displayed near the bed, which I joyfully look at every morning while I move around in my short dressing gown. Prove stayed with me for two days which we nicely enjoyed. Thereafter he took a boarding which he disliked so much that he was no more there when I went to meet him as he had fled to Dorothenstrasse No. 19, due to bed −bugs. - He is very jolly and is not at all disturbed by his exams. He was here with his tasks, and now I have sent him away telling him that I have

to write a letter to Chemnitz. He greets you again and will write to you soon, he was so often so helpful to you in Leipzig, who knows whether you would have got that burnish without him for example. As far as my life here is concerned, firstly I quite like my boarding. The people are clean and honest and do not disturb me. The only unpleasant matter is that I have to descend three steps to reach the toilette, however, I am getting adjusted. My other matters here are agreeable and the house of Hensels I like most as they are extremely kind towards me. In fact I am more often there than my time permits, they also always invite me

for lunch, not on any particular day in the week, but it is not so convenient, therefore I prefer to go there in the evenings. - Last Saturday I was there, they invited me for lunch on Sunday also. I arrived there at 12.00, where grand music was on, Matinee as it was a fortnight ago. Again Antigone chorus was sung while Krelinger recited. Then I stayed on from 2.30 to 4.30 pm in the garden with the home tutor whom I like much, thereafter we played a kind of skittles with the Hensels, for the evening they invited me again as the Danish poet, Öhlenschläger dropped in, and thus I spent the whole day there. - I have not played there yet, as

I was not asked to do so. As I told that I have hired an instrument for almost two thalers which is not bad, she offered me to use an English grand piano which she played earlier. Unfortunately it is impossible to place it in my room which is so fully packed and to look for other boarding is a risky matter. But it was very kind of her. She sends you greetings and told me that she will write to you. He also takes interest in me and trying his most with the minister so that I can use the handwrittens at home, and I am hopeful now to get the permission. - He is rather a gentleman and it appears to be a bit vain. – As regard to Krügers, they

appear not to be overhasty. I visited them immediately after my arrival and then on Sunday, April 28, they invited me through the Hakes for lunch. It was great and they were very pleasant, I also was not in haste to meet them and today I shall meet them again with Hake and Rath and see how it is. In the mean time they had been in Baschleben to a silver wedding also. Hakes are also very kind to me, and I wanted to have my Sundays free, so they have given me Monday and Thursday. It does not take much of my time, as I normally go there und at 3.00 pm they generally take a nap, so I take leave then. About my linen it has not been

settled, she has told me again, but I have not sent it. - Besides I have called on Bopp, Kurt Höfer, (who will review my Hitopadesha) Dr Kuhn, also a Sanskritist, whom I had recommended to Brockhaus, Professor Petermann, whose lecture on Hist. of Orint. Literat, I attend to,Prof. Schott, I attend to learn Persian, all in all I think it would be good. I also went to Schelling’s lectures, although my budget sighs. I did not meet Arnim again, I really don’t have the necessary time, however, I visited Preuß, although I did not find there anything worthwhile. Today I shall probably meet Mary. In addition I have Vogel

and Fontane as friends whom however I meet seldom excepting at evening meals. The food is not bad costing 5 Sgr: only. At home I do not eat much, only bread and butter. I drink my coffee without milk and sugar but with a piece of bread with butter which tastes very well. From Brockhaus I have received the Lexicon, and you can imagine my happiness, although 44 thalers were quite painful for me. He sent me also 10 copies of the Griechenlieder in a beautiful layout. I do not know how to send you a copy. – I am very much shocked about poor Emilie, as you write, please tell her about it; I shall not personally write to her, as I shall

see her soon, like to know the address of Hagedorn. I have written to Simolin through his brother-in-law, the Baron von Wettberg, who was recommended by Rath. The letters to Lassen and Schlegel are also ready. – You see, it is not uncomfortable for me here, and that I miss nothing here excepting my loving little mother. Please write quite soon, but not again that you do not like Chemnitz, if one is satisfied, one feels well everywhere, in the Hitopadesha it says, when you wear a leather shoe, then the whole world is covered with leather. Lots of greetings for Auguste and Krug be you all three joyful together and think then also of

Your Max. Here we would like to make only one remark, and put two questions concerning this letter. It was painful for us to translate this letter in his style, which reveals the intellectual and mental disposition of a young man who has remained a child. Now the questions. Why does Friedrich Maximilian want to attend lectures offered by professors who did not belong to theology while he got matriculated as a student of theology? And: Why does he try to learn Persian at Berlin? We refrain from our temptation to reproduce the letter also in his handwriting as facsimile right here. We

may do it in a separate chapter. But we do reproduce the letter in German original: Meine liebe Mutter, schon oft habe ich mich danach gesehnt, Dir wenigstens schriftlich einige Worte sagen zu können, und gewiß hast auch Du manchmal gewünscht, von mir zu hören, es geht ja nun aber doch nicht anders und wir werden unsere Geduld wohl noch oft üben müssen, ehe wir voneinander Nachricht bekommen. Besonders die ersten Wochen sind mir in Berlin recht langsam verflossen, Tag für Tag hoffte ich auf einen; wo ich hinkam frugen sie mich, ob ich noch keine

Nachricht hätte und immer mußte ich sagen: Nein, noch nicht. Auch Prowe, auf den ich so lange gehofft hatte, kam nicht und kam nicht. Groß war aber meine Freude als ich Donnerstag 2 Mai Abends von Hensels nach Hause kam und Prowe fand, der schon Mittag gekommen war und auf meinem Sofa schlief. Er mußte mir nun viel erzählen , und berichtete mir schon vorher viel von den Unannehmlichkeiten , die Du gehabt, gab mir aber noch immer keinen Brief, bis ich ihm denn anfing meine Noth zu klagen, wo er mir nun Dein Paketchen auspackte. Wie sehr hab ich Dich bedauert und was magst Du für verdrießliche Stunden

ausgestanden haben. Die schönen Meubel, nun ist wohl alles Rokoko und pompehanisch, denn die renaissance wird wohl nicht viel gefallen haben. Wie habe ich mich auch über die Schuhe gefreut, die jetzt schon an meinem Bette prangen und die ich nun alle Morgen mit Freude ansehe, wenn ich in meinem hochgeschürzten Schlafrock einherstolziere. Prowe blieb zwei Tage bei mir, wo wir recht vergnügt waren. Dann suchte er sich ein Logis, kam aber so schlecht an, daß ich ihn, als ich ihn am andern Morgen besuchen wollte, schon nicht mehr dort fand, und er sich vor Wanzenschaaren schon in ein anderes

Logis, Dorothenstraße No 19, 2 Höfe, 2 Treppen geflüchtet hatte. Er ist sehr fidel und läßt sich sein Examen nicht zu sehr kümmern. Eben war er mit seinen Arbeiten noch bei mir, und ich trieb ihn nun fort, weil ich sagte, daß ich nach Chemnitz schreiben wollte. Er läßt nochmals grüßen und wird nächstens selbst schreiben, er hat Dir doch viele Gefälligkeiten noch in Leipzig erwiesen; wer weiß ob Du ohne ihn auch wenigstens die Politur bekommen hättest. Was nun mein Leben hier betrifft, so gefällt mir erstens mein Logis noch ganz gut. Die Leute sind reinlich und ehrlich und gestört bin ich auch nicht. Das einzige Unangenehme ist

der Abtritt, 3 Treppen tief, jedoch ich suche mich einzurichten. Meine sonstigen Verhältnisse sind hier auch recht angenehm, und besonders ist mir Hensels Haus ein sehr lieber Aufenthalt, da sie besonders sehr freundlich gegen mich ist. Ich gehe öfter hin, als ich eigentlich Zeit dazu habe, auch laden sie mich immer wieder von neuem ein, einen bestimmten Tag haben sie mir jedoch nicht gesagt, da mir überhaupt der Mittag dort , die Zeit und die Orte noch zu unbequem ist und ich lieber Abends hingehe. So war ich vorigen Sonnabend dort, wo sie mich für Sonntag zu Tisch einluden. Ich ging um 12 hin, wo große musikal. Matinee

war, so wie auch vor 14 Tagen. Es wurden da auch die Chöre z. Antigone gesungen und die Krelinger Sprach dazu. Dann blieb ich von ½ 3 bis ½ 5 im Garten mit dem Hauslehrer, der mir gut gefällt, dann spielten wir mit Hensel im Garten eine Art Kegelspiel, aßen dann und für Abends luden sie mich wieder ein, da Öhlenschläger, der dänische Dichter, hinkam, und so war ich fast den ganzen Tag über bei ihnen. Gespielt habe ich noch nicht bei ihr, da sie mich noch nicht dazu aufgefordert hat. Da ich ihr aber erzählte, daß ich mir ein Instrument für 1 Taler 16 Sgr gemietet, was nicht schlecht sei, so bot sie mir einen englischen Flügel, den sie früher

gespielt, zum Gebrauch an. Leider ist es jetzt unmöglich, ihn zu platzieren, da die Wände ringsherum vollgestellt sind, und kaum der Spinknopf einen Platz findet, und auszuziehen ist doch auch eine gewagte Sache. Es ist doch aber sehr freundlich. Sie läßt Dich schön grüßen und sagte mir, daß sie Dir nächstens schreiben wollte. Auch er ist sehr theilnehmend für mich und hat sich beim Minister viel Mühe gegeben wegen der Benutzung der Handschriften in meiner eigenen Wohnung, was ich nun wohl auch erlaubt kriegen werde. Sonst ist er aber etwas Weltmann, und wie es scheint, nicht wenig eitel auf Bändchen und Sofabekanntschaften. –

Was nun Krügers betrifft, so scheinen sie sich nicht zu übereiligen. Ich hatte gleich anfangs bei ihnen einen Besuch gemacht und erst Sonntag 28. Apr. ließen sie mich durch Hakes zu Mittag einladen. Es ging sehr hoch her auch waren sie sehr freundlich, ich habe mich nun auch nicht übereilt und werde auch Hake und Rath erst heute wieder eine Visite dort machen und werde ja sehen, wie sie sich machen. Sie sind unterdeß auch in Baschleben zur silbernen Hochzeit gewesen. Hakes sind aber auch sehr gut gegen mich und da ich den Sonntag gern frei haben wollte, so haben sie es mir Montag und Donnerstag gesagt. Viel Zeit nimmt es

mir auch nicht, da ich nun hingehe und um 3 sie sich gewöhnlich schlafen legen, wobei ich mich dann entferne. Wegen der Wäsche bin ich immer noch nicht im Reinen, sie hat es mir wieder gesagt, ich habe sie aber nicht hingeschickt. Sonst bin ich nun noch bei Bopp, Kurt Höfer, (der meinen Hitopodesha rezensieren wird) Dr. Kuhn, auch ein Sanskriter, dem ich Brockhaus empfohlen hatte, Prof. Petermann, bei dem ich ein Colleg über Orient. Literat. Gesch. höre, bei Prof. Schott, bei dem ich Persisch höre, gewesen und ich denke es wird sich alles gut machen. Auch bei Schelling höre ich, obgleich mein Beutel seufzt. Bei der Arnim war ich

noch nicht wieder, denn ich habe wirklich keine Zeit dazu, jedoch bin ich bei Preß gewesen, ohne aber etwas Besonders dort zu finden. Heute werde ich vielleicht auch zu Mary gehen. Von Bekannten habe ich denn noch Vogel und Fontane, die ich jedoch auch selten als bei Tisch treffe. Das Essen ist nicht schlecht und kostet 5 Sgr. Zu Haus esse ich nur wenig und zwar nur Butter und Brot. Den Kaffee trinke ich ohne Milch und Zucker und esse ein Butterbrot dazu, was sehr gut schmeckt. Von Brockhaus habe ich das Lexikon bekommen, und Du kannst Dir meine Freude denken, wenngleich 44 Taler ein schmerzliches Nebengefühl

waren. Auch 10 Exemplare von den Griechenliedern schickte er mit, die sehr hübsch ausgestaltet sind. Ich weiß nur nicht, wie ich sie Dir schicken soll. - Wie sehr habe ich mich aber über die arme Emelie erschrocken, wenn Du schreibst, sag nur wie sehr leid es mir gethan hätte; ich selbst werde, da ich sie doch bald selbst sehen werde nicht noch schreiben, gern aber wüßte ich die Adresse von German original in the sixth Chapter. An Simolin habe ich geschrieben durch seinen Schwager, den Baron von Wettberg, an den mich die Rath empfohlen hatte. Auch die Briefe an Lassen und Schlegel sind fertig. – Nun Du siehst, daß es mir

nicht schlecht hier ergeht, und daß mir eben nichts fehlt, als meine liebe kleine Mama. Schreib mir nur recht bald, aber nicht wieder, daß es Dir in Chemnitz nicht gefällt, wenn man zufrieden, geht es ja überall und im Hitagadesa heißt es, wenn einer Lederschuh anhat, dann ist die ganze Welt mit Leder gedeckt. Auguste und Krug grüße vielmals und seid alle 3 recht fidel zusammen und denkt dann auch an — Euren Max. His next letter is dated May 22, 1844. It is almost as long as the previous one. We translate it in parts, we indicate the breakings and we know that our

translation in parts is unarticulated commentary.

also

our

“My dear Mother, I think, it is not needed today to soothe you as my last letter must have reached you earlier than your letter containing your unrest; you have surely noticed that it was only partly my fault, the delay of your letter as well. You can imagine how I distressed knowing your anxieties and it would be better in future to fix certain days when we can definitely expect our letters and to be happy in advance. I would like to hope that our letters do not cross now again and that is why I catch hold of the

opportunity to dispatch this letter to Leipzig, so that you will have to pay one Groschen instead of costly postal charges. Hopefully you are not resentful that I do not put stamps on the letters; I think this indulgence is permitted in case of one’s own mother; isn’t it? Why have you then sent me four thalers that you also could make use of? My budget is not so bad and my life here is not that expensive. … I am not envious of your curative drinking course, though it would be good for me too; I feel, thank god, quite well now and actually better, although I work less than in Leipzig. I am pleased that you do not dislike Chemnitz as before. …

About my life here, I gave you some details in my last letter and it continues in the similar way. Four days in a week I have classes at 8.00 to 1.30, when my room is cleaned, then I have meals for 5 Sgr (Silver “Groschen”). Then I have classes at 4.00, and I am pleased that I stay quite near to the university especially in regard to the forthcoming summer days in Berlin. You know already about my meetings, I visited also Mary which was rather dull, also Schelling, who talked to me at length and friendly on Indian philosophy and offered me his help whenever necessary. Last Sunday I had lunch at Krügers, we sat in the garden joyful.

In the afternoon we were in Schönhausen … Paul Mendelsohn’s wife has given birth to a daughter after nine years of their marriage. … − I am becoming sleepy and sleepy as it is already past 10.00, please don’t mind about my handwritings. Prove sends you greetings, he was not able to write to you due to his forthcoming exams. Greeting from all others, Juliens, Krügers, Hensels. With a lot of greetings for Auguste and Krug remains your diligent young chap.” Next he writes on May 28, 1844, also a long letter. Again, we reproduce only in parts for obvious reasons: “Dear Mother,

You may wonder to get news so soon and that threefold. Hensels have given a letter for you, I asked the Anti also to give a letter for you though she hesitated because of postal charges … I won’t be able to write much today as it is quite late and little time is left. I am just back from Hensels and you see that I am often a guest there. They are genuinely kind to me, it is the only place where I gladly go, and not that I must go there. Though you tell me now that you feel happy to note that I do not work so much, I cannot follow you really as I actually don’t know what to do first. When I consider my future and all that I have to do before I can

come to rest, yes, I almost believe that Berlin is not the place to accomplish something thoroughly. … Regarding Benary it is not satisfactory; a recommendation from Alfred would please more. What Höfer says to Hitopadesa I cannot let you know yet, as it does not go so quickly; the same it is in regard to Griechenlieder. I can read journals very seldom, as they are expensive. … Regarding my scholarship I have done the needful, I have written to Justice Richter and to the President of the Chamber, both letters were sent to Dessau through Karl, but I don’t believe that something will come out. On my life here is nothing new worth

writing. It just goes on, and I believe that I shall not need much, the prospect of additional earnings are yet rather bad. About the grand piano I have talked to Hensel and I shall get it checked whether it can be brought on the third floor. It would be a lot of savings and my instrument was so bad that I have given it back some time ago. … I close this letter. It has already gonged 12.00. Many greetings to Krugs, tell them also that I am happy when they enjoy their life with my little Mama. … Prove also send you greetings, he was very pleased to getting your letter, will write as soon as he finishes his exams. Today is May 30, you will not

let me wait later than 14th June with your letter, on which your Max is delighted in advance. Should I write to Carus?” As pointed out earlier, we have translated the last two letters of May in parts, which carry no information according to our judgement. The parts omitted are sheer gossips. We recommend a comparison of our translation and the translation presented by Georgina Max Müller especially in terms of facts. The tune in his next letter, written on June 5, 1844, i.e. in the seventh week of his stay in Berlin has changed. He does

not see his future optimistic at all; he sees it as rather gloomy. Things are not developing well for him: “Dear Mother, As you do not wish that I start writing at 12.00 at night I begin today earlier to let you know how my life here is. The main thing is that I am now unexpectedly fine and lively. And my headaches did not attack so often and it seems that the climate in Berlin do suit me quite well. Though I feel quite fine here in Berlin I do not find time to go for a picnic in this beautiful season and enjoy life outside in natural surroundings. But my works won’t permit me this joy. The vacation

will start here in the beginning of August and till mid October, i.e. up to the 12th. I would rather like to be in Dresden when you and Emilie will be there and as I would like to spend some days in Chemnitz also and so much time will be lost thereby that I can impossibly make further plans. I must make use of my time in Berlin as I shall possibly not stay here longer than a year, unless I find opportunities to reduce the cost of my stay by giving lessons to pupils which had not been possible yet. The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts, my access to them has not yet been finally decided. Where I will be next eastern is also

yet to decide, optionally between Vienna, Paris and Bonn. Paris will only be possible if I could meet Hagedorn somewhere, whose address I would like to get. Vienna attracts me specially for my study of languages, i.e. Persian and Turkish which can better be learnt there than in Paris, and these are necessary to get a job in the orient. You can imagine that also these plans disturbs me often as presently I live without a definite future perspective and renewal of matriculation is expensive and time consuming so that I cannot plan as in another three years, i.e. in all six years after the school final are needed. The sole consolation is that

others are not having better, rather worse, because all subjects are recently overcrowded and only few find a chance to obtain a reasonable service in the government before being 30. So, one has to console oneself with the lilies on the fields, and so on. Now I stop grumbling to you, the time is bad, (mit Sorgen trägt sich schön das junge Blut fallera! Mit Sorgen wird es nicht besser gehen, drum hab ich frohen Muth, fallera! Nicht wahr mein kleiner Schnu...!) “Shake off all the sorrow and agony, Fallera”. You know also that I did have a lot of pleasures. … Sunday noon I was with Krügers who are very kind … in the evening I was with

Hensels … their grand piano is now in my room, and I am quite satisfied with it, I only don’t know where I should keep it during the vacation. … For today I have written enough, my dear Mother. … Many greeting to Krug and Auguste and many kisses for my good Mama from your Max.” There are no letters to his mother between June 5, and August 6. Is he absent from Berlin? We do not know. He writes again on 06.08.1844 and 15.08.1844. In none of these letters he explains his silence from Berlin while the semester was on. We do not find any information on his studies. Just trivial exchange of greetings and gossips. What does it indicate? Has he nothing to

report on his studies to his mother? If that is the case, what can be concluded about his studies at Berlin? Is he learning? It is worth to note that Georgina Max Müller refers to a letter written on 26th June 1844 on page 25 of her book under the heading “Doubts and Difficulties”. This letter is not included in the Oxford collection. We quote her and her translation: “Max Müller seems soon to have found out the expense of the life at Berlin, and the old doubts whether he could afford the life of a scholar revived. On June 26 he writes to his

mother :— Translation. 'I must make the most of my time in Berlin, as I cannot stay here more than a year, unless I can find some chance of lessening my expenses. Where I am to go next Easter is not at all certain. I hesitate between Paris, Vienna, and Bonn. I am attracted to Vienna by the thought of studying Persian and Turkish, for which there are better means than in Paris, and they are certainly necessary should I ever have the chance of employment in the East. You can fancy that these plans often disturb me, as for the nearest future I have no certain prospect; and the University course is

so expensive and wearisome, that I cannot reckon on it, as generally for the first three years, that is six years after leaving school, one is not admitted to anything. Well, one must console oneself with the lilies of the field!’” We refrain from an analysis of this version of the letter. This letter is not kept in the archives. Nowhere. Why it is so, we won’t explore. We just take a note of remembrance. Immediately hereafter Georgina Max Müller continues: “Two days later he writes in his Diary: ‘I cannot give up Sanskrit, though it holds out no prospect for

me.’ Over and over again come the entries in his Diary: 'All day at home'—'no dinner’'—'dinner of stirred eggs' (which he prepared himself)—'work till 3 a.m.' At this time he began Bengali, 'which may perhaps be useful to me later, and is now for comparison with33 the low Indian dialects. I attend Schelling's course more diligently and with great interest; his philosophy has something Oriental about it. I am translating the Kathaka Upanishad for him with great diligence.'” “The term at Berlin which had begun so cheerily was now drawing to an end. Max Müller had not found pupils

or sufficient employment in copying Sanskrit MSS. to eke out his small stipend, and just before returning to Chemnitz he wrote almost despairingly to his mother :— Translation. Aug. 19.” We have found this letter dated August 19, 1844. We consider it as significant. Again, we are tempted to bring this letter first in Handwriting, transcribe it, translate it in the original diction of Friedrich Maximilian Müller and then reproduce the translation done by Georgina Max Müller. This procedure will exemplify how facts are deliberately twisted. We may do it separately, if necessary.

We take liberty to make a few remarks before presenting our translation of the original letter. We are not so ignorant not to know about the difficult job of a translator. We are also not ignorant enough not to know that a translation depends on the intellectual ability and capacity of translators. And as mentioned earlier, we are simpleminded. We can differentiate. We can differentiate between not so professional translations and deliberate distortions. Presently we must focus our attention to two issues for which we don’t find any explanation from any corner. The first issue is that there are no letters between, – even if we considered a letter dated

26.06.1844 as Georgina Max Müller want us to accept -, the fact remains that Friedrich Maximilian was “silent” or absent from Berlin at least for more than five weeks during his three months’ summer term. The second issue is: Why does Friedrich Maximilian stay on at Berlin during the vacation instead of going to Chemnitz to his mother? Keeping these two issues in mind, we continue our reading Georgina Max Müller and her translation of the letter, dated 19.08.1844: 'I am longing to be away from Berlin, to get a thorough change of thought, as I really think I had every chance here of becoming a confirmed

hypochondriac. This is no mere transitory feeling, but it is founded on my circumstances, which have cost me many sad thoughts latterly, I acknowledge that the plan of life I had formed is not to be realized ; that it is difficult for me to part with all these favourite ideas you can well imagine. And yet I see that it would be folly in my circumstances to attempt a University career. You tell me that I still have 800 thalers (£120), but this would only just last till I had settled where to live, and that I should then have the prospect of living for five years as a tutor (Privatdocent) without any stipend from Government. I should therefore

in this way study on to starve, just in order not to give up an idea which I had taken up for my own pleasure, and to which I had sacrificed much money and time. Had I more courage or only anywhere a firm point to cling to, I could perhaps still try my chance, but as it is, nothing remains for me but to become a sensible schoolmaster, which at all events gives one bread and butter. You will feel that a certain amount of resignation is needed for such a decision, and therefore I rejoice all the more at the thought of the next few weeks, which will repay me for many sad hours.'” We restrict ourselves here to three

neutral remarks. Georgina Max Müller does not present the whole letter. Secondly, her translation is incorrect. It distorts the style of language, the spirit of the original letter written in German and summarises often the contents without indicating the summary. Thirdly, a necessary correction of: “living for five years as a tutor (Privatdocent) without any stipend from Government”. The route of academic career we have dealt with in our fourth chapter. Here we explain “Privatdozent” which was valid throughout the history of German universities. A doctoral thesis is the first independent scientific work. Thereafter one has to acquire the qualifications of scientific teaching, documented in

writing, followed up by a discussion amongst the members of the faculty. This is called “Habilitation” which is a German specialty. Thereafter one becomes practically a professor at that university without having a planned and salaried post of a professor. As a “Privatdozent” one earns the lifelong right to teach at that university, but no right to demand a salary from the government. A “Privatdozent” is not a tutor. ***** Here follows the literary translation of the original letter dated August 19, 1844, which we consider to be significant:

“Dear Mother, Although I do not know much to tell you now and from here, yet I want to send you these lines to Dessau so that everything will be ready and fixed for our journey. As you, after leaving Dessau, would like to have only a short break in Eichen so that you can stay a few days more in Strasbourg, so I think, I can definitely meet you already in Leipzig sometime today (We have taken note of the little confusion!). I thought to start on Sunday afternoon, but it could also happen that I cannot leave before Monday, so you must not expect me definitely on Sunday. That we then travel from Leipzig to Dresden

without a break is all right with me if Emilie wishes so, although your carriage will be quite worn out by this back and forth route. That you passed a pleasant time in Dessau delights me much and hopefully my absence there did not affect your stay much. I am so happy to be getting together with you in the forthcoming days. I am really longing to get away from Berlin so that I can once find to my own self, as here I have the best prospect of becoming a real hypochondriac. It is not just a temporary mood; it is caused by my whole circumstances at present which lead to so many gloomy thoughts. I see it clearly that the scheme of life I

had in mind cannot be realised and that it would be hard for me to break away from these favourite ideas you will definitely understand. At the same moment I see also that it would be foolish to begin an academic career under my circumstances as this is a privilege only for persons favoured by luck who can live on own money and must not depend on science. Though you tell me that I would have 800 thalers at my disposal, but do consider that this amount would be at most enough for my eventual “Habilitation” and thereafter the prospect of maintaining myself as a “Privatdozent” for a minimum of five years without any

support from the government. Practically it would mean that I begin my studies to achieve a starving future only because I once started dreaming an idea, though for which I have already spent quite some money and effort, and now unable give it up. Had I had more courage or some fixed anchor, I would possibly try my luck, but as it is I have no other option than becoming a good school teacher and thereby earn at least enough to eat and drink. That such a decision produces quite some resignation you will surely understand; therefore I am all the more rejoiced thinking of the forthcoming days which would

compensate many of my gloomy hours. What you write about Auguste has rejoiced me wholeheartedly, although I also would have wished that they could have cared for them only during the first years especially in view of their Leipzig plan and that the chamber of Krug is not yet so prospering. You two should not get involved in anxieties but look confidently forward to the expected grace of God. What would Emilie say and how I rejoice for my little grandmother. Also for that that you got me the address of Hagedorn which pleases me as he is the only one who could give me the right

advice for my future life whereas I have to depend all on myself in such matters. How would I have been happy if he also would come to Dresden. Now it is enough for today, soon more face- to-face my dear Mother. This noon I shall be with the Hensels who send you a lot of greetings. From Prove I know not a syllable which makes me unhappy. Please send the address of Julia to Schoch as she has written a wrong address No. 21 on a letter to me which has delayed the letter. As regard to the toffees it was paid by the Uncle and I sent it to the Aunty. Aunty Julia sends you many greetings and thanks for the Blüthens which she

has already brewed in sugar, I shall return her your greetings who is very kind to me. Now, my dear Mother, many wishes for all from your Max Between August 19, and October 10, 1844 there are no letters. Friedrich Maximilian Müller sends his mother an extensive description of his journey to Berlin in the letter dated October 10, 1844. He does not indicate whether Chemnitz had been the starting point. Most probably it was. He travels via Leipzig and Dessau. On the way he is happy to find somewhere a place to sleep that was not prefixed. He spends time in Leipzig and Dessau but he does

not mention any friends or academic teachers. He does not go to the university either. Whatever might have been the reasons! By sheer accident, he comes across Hermann Brockhaus who was also on travel. He mentions that Hermann Brockhaus invited him to join him, but he had declined. Georgina Max Müller does not refer to this letter, nor to two other letters dated 25.10 1844 and 09.11.1844. Instead, she mentions a letter dated 24.10.1844 that does not exist. We would have neglected this inaccuracy as a slip if she would not have manipulated the letter extensively, quoting thereafter a letter without a date, offering a remarkable story and then

closing elegantly her Chapter on the “intermezzo” of Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s stay at Berlin. We quote her from the pages 26-28 to begin with: “He writes to his mother again on October 24: — Translation. Berlin. 'I hope you make yourself as happy in the backstream of life as I do. As I sit here in my garret and for days together see no one I know, I fancy myself as a bird alone in its nest on a tall tree, and Leipzig, Chemnitz, and Dessau appear perfect Eldorados. But I am quite happy and amuse myself, by myself, as far as possible. But I must tell you how I kept your birthday. I thought the Hakes would

have invited me that we might drink your health together; but as they did not, I invited Fontane for the evening, who brought a friend, and we brewed punch, set your picture on the table, and drank your health right joyously. I have heard from Dessau that I cannot have the scholarship for a seventh term. Well, I have enough for the present, and I think of the birds in the sky; they have no fire, yet they don't freeze, but I do freeze.' This term Max Müller does not seem to have attended many lectures, but worked in his room on Pali and Hindustani and on translations from the Sanskrit. He finished his

translation of the Meghaduta, and submitted it both to Rückert and Brockhaus. His MS., with Rückert's notes in pencil, still exists; and Brockhaus wrote to him as follows : — Translation, 'I have read your translation with the greatest delight. You have conquered a great difficulty, and reproduced this peculiar artificial poetry in intelligible, and at the same time poetic, language. You have wisely omitted many isolated traits in order to preserve the principal picture, and to give the reader not accustomed to such pictures a clear idea of the whole. Your idea appears to me

almost everywhere the right one. In a few places, I should take a different view, but you have been able to use explanatory materials with which I am not acquainted, and which, no doubt, justify you in many points.' Towards the end of November the old family friend, Baron Hagedorn, suddenly appeared in Berlin, and invited Max Müller to stay with him in Paris, to carry on his Sanskrit work. Baron Hagedorn was born near Dessau in the house of a forester, where his mother left him and never returned. It was evident that his parents were wealthy, as a large sum was yearly paid by a

banker in Frankfort for his maintenance. As a schoolboy he had been boarded with Frau Klausnitzer, the mother of the Cousin Emilie so often mentioned in Max Müller's letters, and thus became the intimate friend of the family. Max writes on his twenty-first birthday to tell his mother of his unexpected happiness.- Translation. December 6. 'My dearly loved Mother,—As I am sitting here quite alone on my birthday (the twenty-first) I must give myself at least the delight of writing to those who love me so, and whom I

dearly love. And first of all comes my darling little mother. My best thanks for your love and goodness, which in many things are far too great. I wrote to Frau Rath to ask for a letter of introduction from the Duchess to Alexander von Humboldt. Very soon after, Frau Rath wrote in the most friendly way, sending me the Duchess's letter. I left this with my card for Humboldt. The other day I passed half an hour with him, and a few days later came a letter from him saying I should have the Sanskrit MSS. at home, which ever since Easter I had begged for in vain from the Minister. As to my Meghaduta, it has been a long time with Professor

Brockhaus in Leipzig, who at last returned it. I then gave it to Rückert, with whom I am learning Persian, and who remembers my father with great affection. He has given me many valuable hints with regard to versification, and even improved several of the verses himself I shall send it in a few days to Mayer Wigand, as I should like to see it printed before I leave for Paris. I wish I could see you, darling mother, and talk over all the unexpected and undeserved kindness that has been shown me. I went Thursday early to Hagedorn, and we talked over everything ; and the result is he has asked me to go to Paris with him, to

live with him there and work. So in about four weeks from to-day I shall be in Paris. Hagedorn will tell you all this himself more fully. The only thing to settle is, shall I come for a few days to Chemnitz before I start? As you can fancy, I should like to do so very much, only I am afraid it would give us more pain than pleasure.'” Again, we are tempted instantly to bring this letter in Handwriting, transcribe it, translate it in the original diction of Friedrich Maximilian, then reproduce the translation done by Georgina Max Müller. As we have indicated earlier, we may do this exercise and bring it in a separate chapter on this issue showing

how slyly Georgina Max manipulated. Presently we ourselves to a few remarks.

Müller restrict

We start with the letter written by Friedrich Maximilian dated 25.10,1844. It is not a letter of ten lines in polished English as Georgina Max Müller has presented. It is on two typed pages in German. She was seemingly confident that in all probability nobody would check her translations and find out her swindles. This swindling has functioned for more than 110 years. The damage thus done may remain for a longer period. This letter is also as usual written in childish and stereotyped German,

written by a young man of almost 21 years, sick and poor. He does not see any prospect of an acceptable future. At Berlin, he loses two semesters of studies because of ill health and disorientation. He is depressed and gets lonely in a city like Berlin having no near relatives. Factually, he is not in a mood to write. But it is a call of necessity and of duty to write to the mother to make her happy communicating wishful fictions. Let us read the beginning of his letter that has simply been deleted by Georgina Max Müller in her translation: “My dear Mother,

Although almost nothing has happened on which I could have written to you, but I know also as well that you are expecting a letter from me as almost 14 days has passed after my last letter. I am passing my life in Berlin quietly at ease and have a lot to do. I call on others only seldom and invitations have become also rare these days, but all in all it is acceptable. Probably it is somehow the same with you at Chemnitz and hopefully you can cope with the dullness of life as I do. When I sit in my mansard and for 2, 3 days I don’t see anyone I know, I feel sitting in the worst spot in this world, and Leipzig, Chemnitz and Dessau appear in my

mind as real Eldorado. Yet in my home as far as possible I always try to be merry and make music in me, but now I would like to tell you how I celebrated you birthday here. ...” It goes on like this. Full of trivial matters, but now and then, there are also important information like: Ø “I didn’t have news from Brockhaus though I remain optimistic.” Ø “A letter from Dessau has reached me informing that I am not to get my scholarship for the seventh term because the demand of the needed persons is much higher

than the Duchy could afford. In capital letters I have written on it: lekt − − −.” Ø “I did not meet Rath in Dessau as Humboldt is already in Paris.” Ø “Presently I have something to bite and think often of birds under the sky. They don’t warm up, they don’t freeze, but I feel cold.” Ø “I have just read Heine. New poems. Very beautiful, and original, but very strong. They are already banned.” Ø “Now my little Mother, the vehicle

does not wait, i.e. I do not know anything more to write … The seven meagre cows are forthcoming. Now wish you well, my little one, be merry, smile once and write soon to your Doktor Max Müller.” This is the first time that in a letter he signs as ”Doktor Max Müller”. This is absolutely unusual. Firstly, one does not put academic titles as signature to friends or relatives, never to a mother. Secondly, one does not belie the mother with a title when this person never appeared to take an academic degree. There could be one exception if the academic title has just been earned. We

know that Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not earn any academic title at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. And in regard to Leipzig University we recall the detailed documentation of his student life there and what Max Müller has reported in “My Autobiography” on page 151: “He (Gottfried Hermann) by no means discouraged me, nay, he was sorry to lose me, when in my third year I went to Berlin. He showed me great kindness on several occasions, and when the time came to take my degree of M.A. and Ph.D., he, as Dean of the faculty, invited me to return to Leipzig, offering me an

exhibition to cover the expenses of the Degree.” We are unable to ascertain whether Adelheid Müller really knew that her son never thought even of trying to take an academic degree at Leipzig University. Taking the hard facts into account we do not rule out that he did belie his mother at Leipzig about his progress in studies as well. Before we then come to the false information supplied by Georgina Max Müller we feel giving a few explanatory notes. “In capital letters I have written on it: lekt − −.” means LMAA (Leck mich am Arsch) meaning literary “Lick me in the arse”, idiomatically it would

be “Kiss my ass”. “Rath in Dessau” is Fräulein Rath, the entry to the Duke of Anhalt- Dessau. “Humboldt” is the famous German scholar Alexander von Humboldt (1769 –1859). “Heine” is Heinrich Heine, renowned Jewish-German poet.

the

“This term Max Müller does not seem to have attended many lectures, but worked in his room on Pali and Hindustani and on translations from the Sanskrit.” The fact is that there is no record at the

Royal Frederick William University in Berlin whether Friedrich Maximilian Müller ever attended any lecture not to talk about a second term, the WS 1844/1845. He does not have a “KollegBuch”, or a certificate. The only available document shows that he got admitted as a student of theology at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. As stipulated then every following semester one was to renew his matriculation. Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not renew his matriculation at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. How should this young man of 21 years know about Pali and Hindustani in 1844

in Berlin, not to talk of learning these two languages? How, when and from whom? The news that these two languages existed, arrived in Germany much later. And, how should he have translated from the Sanskrit language not knowing much more than Sanskrit alphabets at most? Aren’t all these sheer swindles? “He finished his translation of the Meghaduta, and submitted it both to Rückert and Brockhaus. His MS., with Rückert's notes in pencil, still exists; and Brockhaus wrote to him as follows: — Translation” Meghaduta is a short poem composed

by the ancient poet Kalidasa, translated in many non-Indian languages, also in English by Horace Hayman Wilson, in 1813. We shall deal with Horace Hayman Wilson in the next chapter. Rückert is Friedrich Rückert (1788 – 1866), was a German poet, translator, and professor of Oriental languages, who never claimed to have learnt Sanskrit or any other Indian language. “I have read your translation with the greatest delight. You have conquered a great difficulty, and reproduced this peculiar artificial poetry in intelligible, and at the same time poetic, language. You have wisely omitted many isolated traits in order

to preserve the principal picture, and to give the reader not accustomed to such pictures a clear idea of the whole. Your idea appears to me almost everywhere the right one. In a few places, I should take a different view, but you have been able to use explanatory materials with which I am not acquainted, and which, no doubt, justify you in many points.” Hermann Brockhaus has written this letter as told by Georgina Max Müller. We skip this letter, which does not show a date. Content wise it is like two blind persons discussing the features of an “elephant”. This happens to be the scholarly practice in “the wonder that

is” this culture. “Towards the end of November the old family friend, Baron Hagedorn, suddenly appeared in Berlin, and invited Max Müller to stay with him in Paris, to carry on his Sanskrit work. Baron Hagedorn was born near Dessau in the house of a forester, where his mother left him and never returned. It was evident that his parents were wealthy, as a large sum was yearly paid by a banker in Frankfort for his maintenance. As a schoolboy he had been boarded with Frau Klausnitzer, the mother of the Cousin Emilie so often mentioned in Max Müller's letters, and thus became

the intimate friend of the family.” ***** The last recorded letter of Friedrich Maximilian from Berlin is dated 06.12.44. We skip the part that Georgina Max Müller has reproduced in a manipulated short version of the letter. Let it be as it is. On his birthday, he begins his letter: “My dear Herzenskronenmutter (this extraordinary term we just cannot translate, but it carries information regarding his emotions and sentiments, a literary translation would be: mother esteemed as the crown of heart),

As I shall have to sit here alone on my birthday I do at least take pleasure chatting a little in letters with those who love me and whom I love. There comes first my little Mama, whom this time I don’t have much to narrate. To begin with my best thanks for your love and kindness, this is too great. The cigar case is very pretty and bought from Geiger was definitely very expensive. …“ This is followed by a childish long report on presents and gifts he has received. Thereafter: “Now I would tell you of other matters rather than Hagedorn, Emilie, etc., especially of my

correspondences. Though I hardly know now what I have already written to you and what not. To begin with I have received a very friendly letter from Lassen at Bonn that greatly pleased me.” (Lassen is Christian Lassen (18001876), a Norwegian-German orientalist, born at Bergen, Norway. After a university education at Oslo, he studied orientalistic at the University of Heidelberg and the University of Bonn. Christian Lassen claimed to have acquired a sound knowledge of Sanskrit from August Wilhelm von Schlegel who claimed to have learnt Sanskrit in a few months in Paris. He engaged himself in

Paris and London in copying and collating manuscripts. He published his first work together with Eugène Burnouf (We shall deal with him soon) in Paris, Essai sur le Pâli (Paris, 1826). On his return to Bonn he studied Arabic, and took the degree of Ph.D.) “Then I had written to Rath (in Dessau, we already know her) to get a letter from the Duchess recommending me to Humboldt (We have dealt with Alexander von Humboldt). Soon thereafter Rath sent me, along with her exuberantly friendly note, the letter of the Duchess which I delivered to Humboldt with my card. Next day I

met him for 1 ½ hours and 8 days later he informed me in a letter that I am permitted to take the Sanskrit MSS home for which I petitioned to the ministry for months. Thirdly regarding my Wolkenboten (Meghaduta) the delay was caused by Professor Brockhaus, which he has presently sent me back and you will see from his letter that he is very satisfied with it. I have given this also to Rückert from whom I learn Persian who knew Father also. … Before I proceed further with news I would like to embrace you, my dear mother, in great pleasure for so much undeserved kindness that we do experience. I know, you feel the same

way. Last Tuesday Elze came to me after being visited by Hagedorns to ask me to come to Cafe Imperial where we, Hagedorn, Elze and Brückner and me, merrily enjoyed drinks. Nothing could be discussed there. As Hagedorns and Frietel had some family business in Potsdam on Wednesday, Hagedorn asked me to visit him on Thursday morning. We had long gossips but the essence of that was that he offered me to accompany him to Paris and stay with him and do my work. The rental cost would be approximately 1 ½ - 2 ½ thalers. Again I almost posed to have my head screwed on and refused, because presently I could get the

manuscripts here at home for use, I was then indeed unreasonable enough to grasp that a chance like this that will not come again and therefore I shall be in Paris in about four weeks. Hagedorn will bring you the letters of Lassen, Humboldt and Brockhaus. Hagedorn will personally tell you also in details as he is moving from here to Dessau, Leipzig, Dresden, Chemnitz, Frankfurt, from there he will write to me, so that I can join him there. The only uncertainty is whether I should come to Chemnitz for a day or two, I leave to your desire. That I also would gladly like to be there you can imagine; I am only afraid that we shall have more

sorrow than pleasure. Again it also depends on eventual circumstances of which I am already afraid that I have already caused enough sadness. Well, the heaven will hear us and bestow relief. I am happy about the pillow and I had put it around my neck for the whole morning and it will serve me well on my journey. Again, regarding Chemnitz discuss everything with Hagedorn who will inform you about all details that I might have forgotten in great happiness. I shall now write to Auguste and Emilie. So, wish you well, my dear, dear Mother thanking manifold again for all of your gifts and your great love from your

Parisian” ***** So, “What does Friedrich Maximilian learn at Berlin University?” We can definitely ascertain that Friedrich Maximilian does not learn the Sanskrit language at Berlin. Soon after his arrival, “my wish to go to Berlin arose partly from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling” withered away. In academic terms, he does not study at Berlin, for whatever reasons that might have been. He does not leave behind any documented marks at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. He just leaves Berlin incognito

as he left “I am in Leipzig incognito” even without giving a notice to the University. He does not take any certificate, not even a university-leaving certificate. Seemingly, he kept himself busy in the library of the university trying to copy the handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts kept at Berlin. But when does he do it? How many MSS were there? It is not on record. How does he copy handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts without knowing the language? This we shall have to discuss in due course. We won’t speculate on the influences of his intermezzo at Berlin regarding his character. We assume, however, that Friedrich Maximilian had decided not to

continue his formal academic studies any more. As it seems, he did find at Berlin a glimpse of “virgin soil left to the plough”, which he had detected for his “own spade”: Copying handwritten Sanskrit Manuscripts. The fact that he was denied access to the Sanskrit manuscripts by the authorities of the university and by the ministry for months that was so easily evaded by a letter of a Duchess to Alexander von Humboldt and a move by Alexander von Humboldt must have taught him that connections are more important than anything else. Lastly we assume that he had chances to learn and practice “talking”; chatting on music, on orient, on anything that was not on, on remote

themes. Does he practice “talking” using foreign words, short references to current affairs, quotes from ancient Greek, Latin and “oriental” literature? He does now and then. ***** We don’t know whether he will ever read Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679). Probably not. But he has begun to learn the wisdom of Thomas Hobbes by experience:

Eloquence is power, because it is seeming prudence. In “My Autobiography” by Max Müller there is a Chapter V, titled “Paris”,

containing 25 pages. It begins with the revealing lines (p. 157): “My stay in Paris from March, 1845, to June 1846, was a very useful intermezzo. It opened my mind and showed me a new world; showed me, in fact, that there was a world besides Germany, though even of Germany and German society I had seen very little. I had been working away at school and university, but with the exception of my short stay in Berlin, I had little experience of men and manners outside the small sphere of Dessau and Leipzig. I had been at Berlin some nine months when in December, 1844, my

old friend Baron Hagedorn came to see me, and invited me to spend some time with him in Paris. He had his own apartments there, and promised to look after me. At the same time my cousin, Baroness Stolzenberg, whom I have mentioned before as wishing me to enter the Austrian diplomatic service, offered to send me to England at her expense as a teacher. I hesitated for some days between these two offers. I knew that my patrimony had been nearly spent at Leipzig and Berlin, and the time had come for me to support myself; and how was I to do that in Paris? On the other hand, I had long felt that for continuing my Sanskrit studies a stay in Paris and

later perhaps in London also, was indispensible. I had also to consider the feelings of my mother, whose whole heart was absorbed in her only son. However, Sanskrit, and my love of an independent life won the day, and I decided to accept Hagedorn’s proposal.” Here is another heart breaking cute story presented by Max Müller on the mental dispositions and wisdom of Friedrich Maximilian. We prefer to put both of them and their love for Sanskrit in a broader historical perspective rather than keeping us busy with smiles only. *****

We are still on our search to find out: “What does Friedrich Maximilian Müller learn at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin?” Does he learn anything that is relevant for our search? He came to Berlin with great expectations. We recall his own written report in his autobiography on page 153: “My wish to go to Berlin arose partly from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling. My inclination towards philosophy had become stronger and stronger; I had my own ideas about the mythological as a necessary form of ancient philosophy, and when I saw that old philosopher had advertised his lectures

or lecture on mythology, I could not resist, and went to Berlin in 1844.” Then there is no chapter in “My Autobiography” on his stay in Berlin. Not a single line on Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. Only the following lines on Franz Bopp, as quoted earlier: “I must say at once that Professor Bopp, though he was extremely kind to me, was at that time, if not old – he was only fifty-three – very i firm. In his lectures he simply read his Comparative Grammar with a magnifying glass, and added very little that was new. He lent me some manuscripts which he had copied in Latin in his younger days, but I could

not get much help from him when I came to really difficult passages. This, I confess, puzzled me at this time, for I looked on every professor as omniscient. The time comes, however, when we learn that even at fifty-three a man may have forgotten certain things, nay, may have let many books and new discoveries even in his own subject pass by, because he has plenty to do with his own studies.” Once again we find a remarkable, almost fleeting, sentence within this quotation: “He lent me some manuscripts which he had copied in Latin in his younger days, but I could not get much help from him when I came to really difficult

passages.” Franz Bopp lends Friedrich Maximilian Müller “some manuscripts which he had copied in Latin in his younger days.” Did Max Müller really mean that Franz Bopp had copied some Sanskrit manuscripts in Latin? What else could it mean? How could Franz Bopp copy handwritten Sanskrit Manuscripts in Latin without ever listening to the sound of Sanskrit words? Scholars belonging to this wonder some culture are not plagued with questions like these. And no questions, no answers. Friedrich Maximilian Müller apparently gets interested in original Sanskrit manuscripts during his stay in Berlin. We wondered earlier over a report given

by Georgina Max Müller: “He wanted also to examine the collection of Sanskrit MSS. which the King of Prussia had just bought in England from the executors of Robert Chambers.” We assume, in all probability Friedrich Maximilian Müller was on the way discovering his virgin soil left to the plough in Sanskrit handwritten manuscripts in Berlin. ***** We cannot close the chapter: “What does Friedrich Maximilian learn at Berlin University?” without referring once again to the letter presented by Georgina Max Müller without a date

concerning Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling: “Max Müller had expected great things from Schelling, and in a letter to his mother thus describes his first visit to the great philosopher: — Translation ‘I went to announce myself. He receives people at four o'clock. I had not expected much, for I had heard how he had dismissed Jellinick, but I was more fortunate. I asked him if he would continue to lecture next term on the Philosophy of Revelation, He said he could not decide yet, therefore probably only a private lecture again.

Then I spoke to him of my time in Leipzig, of Weiss and Brockhaus, and then we came round to Indian Philosophy. Here he allowed me to tell him a good deal. I especially dwelt on the likeness between Sankhya and his own system, and remarked how an inclination to the Vedanta showed itself. He asked what we must understand by Vedanta, how the existence of God was proved, how God created the world, whether it had reality. He has been much occupied with Colebrooke's Essays, and he seemed to wish to learn more, as he asked me if I could explain a text. Then he asked where I was living, knew my father as Greek poet and a

worker on Homer, and at last dismissed me with " Come again soon," offering to do anything he could for me.’” We have gone through all letters written by Friedrich Maximilian to his mother from Berlin. Only twice, he refers to Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. In May 1844, he has written: “Besides I have called on Bopp, Kurt Höfer, (who will review my Hitopadesa) Dr Kuhn, also a Sanskritist, whom I had recommended to Brockhaus, Professor Petermann, whose lecture on Hist. of Orint. Literat. I attend to, Prof. Schott, I attend to learn Persian, all in all I

think it would be good. I also got to Schelling’s lectures, although my budget sighs (Auch bei Schelling höre ich, obgleich mein Beutel seufzt).” Thereafter on May 22, 1844: “...You know already about my meetings, I visited also Mary which was rather dull, also Schelling, who talked to me at length and friendly on Indian philosophy and offered me his help whenever necessary. Last Sunday I had lunch at Krügers, we sat in the garden joyful. ...” Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling occurred never again. We make a break here. We have to look into Europeans

encountering the Sanskrit language in India and view and review the results following those encounters.

CHAPTER 7

EUROPEANS ENCOUNTERING SANSKRIT IN BHARATAVARSA (INDIA) Sanskrit is an ancient language of a land called Bharatavarsa. It is not in memory when this language was spoken. Vast amount of sophisticated literature is handed-down in the language called Sanskrit by “oral tradition”. The four Vedas are not compiled in the Sanskrit language. Since time immemorial the Vedic texts are handed-down by “oral

tradition” in the Vedic language. A written mode is not yet created. Sanskrit comes later. Logically, written modes are created quite later. It is significant to note that the oral-tradition of the Vedic texts persists to our day. This is unique. European Christians will discover in as late as 1875 that the Vedas are not composed in the Sanskrit language. All available translations of the Vedas in European languages are translated by “scholars” who believed that the Vedas are composed in the language, they believed to be the Sanskrit language. It has not mattered yet. None of these faulty translations are disposed off. The Vedas are thus not yet been adequately

translated in European languages. This is the fact. Science, Knowledge, Art and Culture dominated the life in the vast area between the Himalayas and Indian Ocean, between today’s south-Chinese seas to Mesopotamia. Vedic knowledge can be condensed in two Vedic words: sanatana dharma: Principals governing the whole cosmos as ever. The humankind is one of the many kinds on our earth, all interrelated, all interdependent. The role of humankind, i.e. individual, society and nature on our earth is defined as the duty to maintain the principles of the cosmos on the earth, which is a tiny part of the whole cosmos.

Not much details of Bharatavarsa are known in the rest of the world excepting accumulation of wealth and affluence in all walks of life. The then contemporary ancient lands establish trade and cultural relationship with Bharatavarsa. We have not come across records indicating any similar buccaneering in Bharatavarsa like that of the ruffian Alexander of Macedonia. At least as far as Bharatavarsa is concerned, the ruffian Alexander puts a caesura in history establishing the Era of Alexander of Macedonia, an Era of buccaneering. This could have been a landmark in the human history as well. We shall get back to this Era in a little while.

***** In our chapter: “Learning Sanskrit in Germany in general and at Leipzig in particular” we continued our search to ascertain the extent and the depth in the Sanskrit language that Friedrich Maximilian Müller could have learnt at Leipzig University. We began our rearward journey at Leipzig in 1842, from his academic teacher Hermann Brockhaus and we reached at Paris, to Alexander Hamilton in 1803. Like many British ruffians, he also had arrived in Bengal. Alexander Hamilton happens to be the very first teacher of the “Sanskrit”

language in Europe. This has been put on records by a German called Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel (1772 – 1829), who is considered to be a pioneer of “Indo-European” Studies. It is said that he was a radical atheist and an individualist in his youth. Around 1810 he becomes a Catholic and a diplomat and writer in the service of Metternich surrounded by monks. In 1814, he is knighted in the Supreme Order of Christ. In the gallery of Indologists, we find him as Friedrich von Schlegel. We know from his letters that he did learn his Sanskrit from Alexander Hamilton in 1803. How he learnt his Sanskrit in

Paris we have documented in our chapter: “Learning Sanskrit in Germany in general and at Leipzig in particular”. Whatsoever, he publishes in 1808 an epoch-making book, Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier (On the Language and Wisdom of India) and exits from the scene. He does not teach Sanskrit to anybody. Antoine Léonard de Chézy appears as the second European Sanskrit teacher also in Paris, a few years later as we have documented. He claimed to have learnt his Sanskrit language all by himself. His claim has not yet been challenged. Though it is totally incomprehensible to us how an ancient

classic language could be learnt all by oneself, even without ever hearing the sound of it. Scholars of all disciplines of science-based subjects in “modernity” do accept this claim. This ‘seed’ we are following in our search for truths. We are confronted with the fact that a language named Sanskrit has arrived in Europe from Bharatavarsa (India). Whoever might have claimed to have learnt “the Sanskrit language” all by himself after 1803, he could have at best consulted those four “grammars” in English that were available in the market; by the missionary William Carey (1804), by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1805), by Charles Wilkins

(1808) and by senior merchant H. P. Forster (1810). This hard fact guides us to our search to trace back to those Europeans who came in contact with that ancient classic language called Sanskrit. We know by now all about those “scholars” who wanted us to believe that Alexander Hamilton brought the Sanskrit language from India to Paris in 1803. Now we know that this does not correspond to hard facts. And we know as well that the twenty-one years old Friedrich Maximilian Müller could not have learnt the Sanskrit language from Hermann Brockhaus at Leipzig. Friedrich Maximilian Müller went to Berlin. Thus we extended our search to

ascertain when, where, from whom and for how long he learnt his Sanskrit language. In his quest learning the Sanskrit language at Berlin, he totally failed. He has put on records that he did not learn “Sanskrit” in Berlin because of Franz Bopp’s inability to teach. Franz Bopp was almost senile by 1844 if we trust Max Müller. At Berlin, Friedrich Maximilian Müller contends himself trying to copy “Sanskrit handwritings” stored in the university library. We do not know how many such “handwritings” were there, whether they were complete in texts or just fragments. Whatsoever, it is incomprehensible how he could have checked and known what

he was copying, what could be the procedure of his copying, how much time he needed to copy a page and so on and so on. We shall wait and watch the results of this exercise. Taking liberty to looking a little ahead, Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not copy any “Sanskrit Manuscript” in Berlin. In between, we deal chronologically and thoroughly with Europeans who came across the original ancient language called Sanskrit. Thereafter we shall look into the progress of Friedrich Maximilian Müller in his learning the Sanskrit language. We keep the fact in mind that he didn’t have an opportunity to learn Sanskrit at Berlin.

***** The Macedonian ruffian Alexander would not have taken troubles of buccaneering, if nothing had been known about rich civilisations and cultures in the south and southeastern areas from Macedonia. No ruffian plans a predatory attack into the blue, on regions from where nothing could be robbed. Alexander knows a lot about riches in the land beyond the river called Sindhu (in Greek Indos). We do not know the historical process how this land gets ultimately the name “India” since then. In our context, it is not important investigating on this issue. Before that happened, the name of this land had been

Bharatavarsa since tens of centuries. People in Bharatavarsa did not call their land “India”. But here for convenience, we use the name “India”. We thought, we should make this remark as a note once again. The Hellenes starts trading with Bharatavarsa long before the first “revelation” occurred in human history, i.e. before Moses. The Hellenes know about India’s wealth and welfare. There are travelogues of Skylax, geographic descriptions by Hekatæus, historiography by Herodot or treatises on “India” by Ktêsias. It is generally known that the Macedonian ruffian Alexander is unable

to penetrate far into India. He suffers serious setbacks. He has to retreat. After his early death – he dies at the age of 32 – his Macedonian empire is divided up. One of his generals and successors (Diadochs), Seleukos I. Nikator (358261 BC) sets up his dynasty on the vast area, stretching from Syria to the Hindukush Mountains on the border with India. He enters a peace treaty with Chandragupta and exchanges ambassadors. Their ambassadors are not undercover wolves. They are cultured people. One of them is world-famous: Megasthenes, who lives approximately between 350 and 290 BC, probably

belonging to one of the Ionic colonies in west-Asia. He is not a ruffian. He has enjoyed high education and possesses administrative experience. He becomes ambassador at the court of Chandragupta in the empire of the Maurya. He lives in India about 11 years and travels a lot. He does not require doing private “business” to make money. He has a good living. He is not a scout for ruffians lurking in the background. He does not have missions. He is not a Christian as Christianity arrived later. He might have been “tall, blond, blueeyed and white”, should we apply those racial characteristic attributed later by the European Christians. He is an ambassador in the genuine sense. He is

not under pressure to send weekly, monthly, quarterly reports to promote interests of the Seleukides-dynasty in India through a so-called foreign policy. Nothing of this sort is handed down. Not even a hint. Megasthenes thus possesses among all foreign authors of ancient times the best working conditions for observing and writing on India. He writes four volumes: First volume on Geography, fauna, flora; second volume on Customs, cities, administration; third volume on Society, philosophy; fourth volume on Archaeology, myths, history. The title: Tá Indiká (Τά ινδικά) literally translated: The Indian matters. He does

not mention specifically the languages prevalent in India. Nor does he mention a specific language in which vast amount of literatures has been written and handed down in Bharatavarsa. Is there any specific need to speculate on languages? ***** We all know that between Alexander of Macedonia (3rd century BC) and the Portuguese Christian Vasco da Gama (in 1498) no European ruffian touches Indian soil. The Ottomans block the trade route via Red Sea, Egypt and/or Persia, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey in the 15th century. A sea route to India is needed. The Portuguese establishes their

naval power by 1515 and bring all important ports of the western coast of “India” under their control. Not as traders, as their descendants always try to make us believe, but as brutal, deceitful, ruthless robbers, killers and exploiters. They start as ruffians, then transforming themselves to “writers”, to “clerks” (persons pulling the levers) and “justifiers” of their rulers (persons called “intellectuals”). Traders they never were. Thus begins the Era of Vasco da Gama. The low rung ruffians are poor, uneducated, brutal, reckless, greedy and undisciplined. In the field, the robbers belonging to rich families have to keep

the ruffians under control. Gradually the ruffians are organised by the “writers” to combat troops. The writers are made of the same stuff like the ruffians, except for the fact that they look a little further ahead. The clerks are more complicated. They are educated, not always able to fight, but not less reckless, brutal and greedy. The justifiers enable the robbers belonging to rich families to exchange their “daggers” with “desks”. They build up images for clerks as administrator and manager, for writers as police force and for ruffians as soldiers. The justifiers are well educated, disciplined, loyal, but equally unscrupulous, shameless and greedy. They are the Christian producers of

ideologies, the brain-washers for their masters (rulers). And their moral standard? What is that? In the last chapter, we have introduced a term that compels us to take an aside. We have occasionally mentioned that we are simple-minded persons, straight and honest. We have nothing to conceal, the least our values. In the context of “Hitopadesha” we wrote: “The episodes in Hitopadesha have always been recognized, also in the “modern times” as priceless treasures of morality and knowledge. These are narrated in a logical and clear way. They do not propagate moral behind the episodes. Moral is just revealed by

simplicity and by logic to young and old, to children and to parents. Sages of Bharatavarsa, scientists who ‘saw’ processes in nature and societies, in micro und macro cosmos, did not have any urge to sell their acquired knowledge. For them knowledge belonged to mankind. For them knowledge was never a commodity. They were not ‘intellectual prostitutes’. British colonizers began selling ancient knowledge of Bharatavarsa as their own ‘discovery’ and started claiming ‘copyrights’. Thieves and plunderers like Sir William Jones have founded a culture of theft, of stealing, of plundering unscrupulously.

Plagiarism is a minor folly. We shall deal with many ‘intellectual prostitutes” and Sir William Jones later in due course.” The term “intellectual prostitutes” is not our creation. Had it been ours, we would not have claimed “copyright” for this characterization of many celebrated personalities. We do not claim credit when we reproduce knowledge acquired in our society. We participate in knowledge belonging to humanity. The term “intellectual prostitutes” is created in the wonder that is this culture. We came across an episode, which we did not witness, but the content of the episode corresponded to our observation and experience. This

episode “The Man Who Came to Dinner” has made us thoughtful. Here it is. John Swinton, the doyen of the New York press corps, probably in 1880, upon his retirement, made the following speech at the Dinner celebrating his retirement: “There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are

paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting of an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all

the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” The reactions of those journalists celebrating John Swinton’s retirement are not handed-down. We feel, his confession “The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon” do reflect the business of the “scholars” as well. We won’t take a break to discuss the term “intellectual prostitutes” right now. But we won’t conceal our mind and add remarks whenever we make use of this term. Presently we would like to add in the following a quotation of “Sephardic

Jews” and an anonymous report (without a date) on a current international scene that keeps us occupied as well. We present both here in the hope that this scenario could provide us an additional perspective to understand what is happening to us in the Era of Vasco da Gama. “Sephardic Jews” is a general term referring to the descendants of Jewish settlers, who lived in the Iberian Peninsula until the Spanish Inquisition. “The Inquisition was originally intended in large part to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Judaism and Islam. This regulation of the faith of the newly converted was intensified after

the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.” “I do understand that you have to eat like all of us and therefore must keep your mouth shut. You are Jewish and so am I. (Sephardic).” Here is one anonymous report (without a date) on the current international scene in Libya just as an example. It is remarkable that the author does not dare to disclose his identity. Obviously, he is not yet at the retiring age like that of John Swinton’s: “For the sake of truth, I will give you here another side to the Libyan story.

Just imagine a country where there is no electricity bill. Electricity is free to all its citizens. There is no interest on loans, banks were state owned and loans given at zero percent interest by law. Having a home was considered a human right. All newlyweds received US$ 50 000 from the govt to buy their first apartment and to help them start a family. Education and medical treatments were free. Before Qaddafi, 25 % of the population were literate. Today this figure is 83 percent. Should Libyans want to take up farming, they would receive land, a farmhouse, equipments, seeds and livestock to kick start their operation, absolutely free of charge. If citizens

could not find the education or medical facilities they needed, the govt would fund them to go abroad, free of charge, and would get some US$2,300 per month for accommodation and car allowance. Cars were government subsidized to the tune of 50%. Fuel prices were $0.14 per litter. The country had no external debt and its reserves amounted to some $170 billion, now frozen globally plus some 27 tons of gold, which the new regime found safely in the National Bank. Any graduate unable to find a job would get the average salary for the profession, as if he/she was employed, until employment found. A portion of

oil sales were credited once a year to every citizen bank account. A mother who gave birth, immediately got some $5000. Forty loaves of bread cost $0.15. 25% of citizens have a university degree. An immense project bringing water from aquifers in the south made it available all over the country, free of charge. That is what that “tyrant” Qaddafi gave to his people. There are some 150 tribes in Libya and a strong hand was necessary if the country was to remain in one piece. Every citizen was in possession of a military weapon. Qaddafi was not frightened of his own people. The so called rebels, who took over, so we are told,

would not have lasted a few days without NATO air power, British and French commandos and thousands of mercenaries. Those are the winners. Now another Karzai has been installed in Tripoli, and the country can be plundered at the victors’ whim and fancy. It takes $1 to extract a barrel of Libyan oil and today’s price is over $100. Total the French company has already grabbed some 30% of the Libyan state oil company. BP is starting exploration. And of course massive contracts for the reconstruction of Libya will be handed over to US and European companies. Of the sovereign fund, only some 1.2 billion have been

released out of the $170 billion. With the state of the European economy, I doubt very much if Libya will see the rest any time soon. Now Lybians are free as you say, but as Janice Joplin used to say … freedom is just another word for nothing else to lose, as Libyan queuing for funds at their bank’s door are finding out. Qaddafi is gone and so are the perks. What will be left is a terrible civil war. The price of democracy! ‘It is the joyous jiggling dance Americans do –USA! USA! - when their government slaughters someone illegally. It is primitive, but it is positively Libyan’. Wrong. It is positively American! Just saw a movie on the training of the US

Army before going to Iraq. Soldiers running and singing: ’Kill the women! Kill the children!’ Then we are shown the results when civilians are gunned down in the streets by those braves. All on film. When they come back home, realising what they have done, they just commit suicide! These are ordinary Sunday soldiers with families. We can hide the truth with prison sentences, but the truth eventually comes through, and unfortunately for us we cannot plug the dyke any longer.” Janis Lyn Joplin (1943 –1970) was an “American” singer-songwriter who first rose to fame in the late 1960s. A report

of this quality we could have written, for example, on Iraq war that began in the nineties of the last century as well. ***** After this aside we get back to the 15th century, to Vatican, to the Papal Bull: the 1455 Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex granting the Portuguese all lands and to the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494 negotiated between the Spanish and Portuguese Kingdoms, sanctioned by Vatican. Thus the European Christians have declared war on the rest of the world. This is the first declared “World War” well in advance. “Christian intellectual prostitutes” have veiled this “World War” in various patterns with

many different names. This “World War” has not ended yet. We shall deal with the so-called World Wars in due course. Now we get back to sinful activities of European Christians in India. Portuguese Christians arrive in 1492 the western coast of “India”. Goa is assaulted by the Portuguese ruffians and subsequently occupied in 1515. Murder and expulsion are just regrettable “collateral damages”. The writers and the clerks arrive disguised as “traders”. The same thing happens in other parts of the world. And, not surprisingly, the European Christian Churches are always party to plunder, murder, genocide and

exploitation because the high dignitaries of the Churches are not disinclined towards worldly lures. The Catholic Church supports this World War and participates directly in it. In 1518, the Franciscans settle in Goa. The Order of the Jesuits, founded in 1540, sends the Jesuit missionary Francisco Xavier (1506-1552) to Goa in 1542, the Dominicans arrive in 1548 and the Augustinians in 1572. Other Christian orders come later. The ordinary missionaries might not have understood all that is happening. We don’t want to speculate on this. It is important here to understand the vital role played by the Portuguese

priests/preachers. With missionary zeal, they propagate the Christian way of life. With similar zeal they cover also the wheeling and dealings of the Portuguese robber-traders. The poor, ignorant “lower-grade-ruffians” are distracted from the inordinately high profit (loot) of the “high-grade-ruffians” and their financers. The message, the “reason” the missionaries give for this manipulation, is deceptively simple. Why do the heathens just run away leaving all their belongings behind, instead of finding shelter under the “true and only God”? And what else could be done with the belongings left behind than store them safely? Should valuable items just be allowed to decay? And all those who do

not or cannot run away are misled by the public show of “piety”. The primitive ruffians do the nasty job and die as they usually do in wars. Here they die as ruffians under the veil of spreading the Christian charity”. In our days they die as soldiers under the veil of spreading democracy and human rights. Who would still dare to talk of war, plunder, murder, genocide and exploitation robbery? The ships are not cheap. Nor are guns and other arms. Men, however, are cheap. There are plenty of them in Portugal who have nothing to lose. They are tempted by the chance either to come back home wealthy after the adventurous

enterprise or to sacrifice their rather useless lives for a good cause, to bring the Christian light, charity and welfare to the “heathens”. In the latter case, they would be rewarded in heaven. Good bait for a murderous enterprise for all those who have nothing to lose. The ships sail back loaded with goods. The missionaries, “lower-grade-ruffians” and the “high-grade-ruffians” do not care for culture of the “heathens”. None of the real organisers of such buccaneering voyages are on the ships. These voyages cost money. Only a few have it. They come together and make contracts. The anticipated profit from robbery is distributed in advance. The risk of a loss is low. They know that

their mercenaries will not face animosity on landing. They want to rob in a land where people are accustomed to encounter foreigners since time immemorial for exchange of commodities only. The indigenous people could not imagine that these new “traders” from Europe have no commodities for trading on board but only cannons and ruffians. These “traders” bank on the effect of surprise. And they are right. Nowhere do they face difficulties on land. They are not in a hurry. The winds and the currents permit only an annual journey by sea. Even for scouting, there is enough time. Minor attacks and forays

are made after careful planning. The right place at the right time. Much violence is involved in the plunder. The unexpected brutality does not only cause surprise but also spread fear among the populace. The intruders barricade themselves on land. It begins with the land grabbing and then occupation. Modern “historians” have camouflaged this process as “building up of bases”. This camouflage is also an example of the Christian “moral” doctrines. ***** The first ever recorded authentic report on the culture of the “heathens” in India appears rather accidently. A Florentine called Filippo Sassetti (1540-1588)

arrives in India on the scene in 1583. He is an exceptional figure in the gallery of the Christian exploiters because he is neither a ruffian, nor a missionary, nor a “book-keeper”, nor a “clerk”, but rather a servant of a lot of European masters interested in making profit by exploitation. When he reaches India in 1583, most of those Portuguese “bases” have already been consolidated. Filippo Sassetti writes a series of detailed letters - detailed accounts - on geography and on people, giving it a literary touch for his own pleasure. He doesn’t live in India for long. He dies in September 1588 before ever leaving India. His letters are rather “yearly

accounts”, determined by the then prevalent annual rhythm of sailing. His service to his masters takes annually a few months only. He has enough time to observe and to write. Normally all these excellent accounts by Filippo Sassetti would have been forgotten after the funeral oration held in Florence in 1589 to commemorate his death in Goa in 1588. His letters are preserved in Florence as valuable documents of the times. They contain amazing details. These details are about the people of India and their culture as well as about criminal behaviour of the Portuguese robber-traders towards Indians. He will be “discovered” for the

world around the middle of the 19th century, when the waves of “Indology” and of “comparative linguistics”, created mainly in Germany by Franz Bopp, also get hold of Italy. Irony of history? Indeed. We introduce Filippo Sassetti in some details because of the difference in personality between him and the “Max Müllers”, between him and the many “Christian intellectual prostitutes”. These details open up also the then power structure in Europe and patterns of exploiting the so-called colonies. We do not get here too deep into the “colonial history”.

Filippo Sassetti is born on September 26, 1540 in Florence as the second son of a noble family, which had always been loyal to the ruling dynasty of the Medici. In return the family received a considerable fortune during the rule of Cosimo I in the 15th century. But his grandfather, Francesco Sassetti, extravagantly squandered away the wealth and property. Giovambattista Sassetti, his father, had to send his two sons into commercial apprenticeship. Filippo Sassetti doesn’t like trade and commerce. Quite early, he has developed a penchant for literature, which at the time is very much “in” for Florentines from a “well to do family”.

He quits his job in 1564 at the age of 24 and enrols at the University of Pisa. The university is intended by the ruling Medici to be “the central university” of Tuscany. As a rather “late student” he plunges into academic life, concentrating on fundamental studies of Greek and Latin. He studies also philosophy and literature for seven years. Intellectual life thrives in the new “academies”. The members are the elite of Tuscany’s scholars. Filippo Sassetti wants to be one of them. Whilst still a student, he is invited by Piero Rucellai to give a lecture on “The enterprises” in the “Accademia Fiorentina”. His lecture

is such a great success that Giorgio Bartoli writes in a letter to Lorenzo Giacomini on September 19, 1572: “...with Sassetti one cannot go on staying at the old level, since he has become much learned and has proven this at the high Florentine Academy by his very erudite ‘lesson on the enterprises’.” The Medici has taken notice of him. Nevertheless, he must also earn money. At the age of 38, he has to go into business again. His brother Francesco has been responsible for a heavy loss as an employed property administrator in Ancona. He is liable for indemnity and thus loses his whole fortune. Filippo

Sassetti gives his brother his small property. Fortunately, the Medici has trade interests too. They aim to divert the trade with the Ottoman Empire to the port of Leghorn in Tuscany. They are also eager to invest in the “spice trade” in Portugal and Spain. Filippo Sassetti writes a comprehensive paper with concrete suggestions about how to develop Leghorn in order to make it attractive for the Turkish merchant ships in competition with Venice and the ports of Ancona and Ragusa (today Dubrovnik) on the Adriatic Sea. The route through the Adriatic Sea is actually shorter for the Turkish vessels

and the navigation safer than the route through the western Mediterranean. The project fails, however, because the long negotiations between the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Sultan collapse when the Grand Duke refuses de facto to protect the Turkish merchant fleet against the pirates belonging to the Order of St. Stephen. The "knights” of this order are dependent on the Pope and Spain, said the Grand Duke. The competitors, the Adriatic ports, however, can convince the Sultan in 1578 that the fleet of the order stood under the personal supreme command of the Grand Duke. Leghorn lost the race. Filippo Sassetti missed a career.

He then decides to make himself useful for the Tuscan businesspersons in the pepper market. Antwerp has ceased to be a centre for distribution of Portuguese pepper in Northeast Europe. Why should Florence not fill the vacuum, created by the wish of Philipp II to cut off the Protestant countries from the spice trade in Lisbon? Venice could be weakened as well. Thus, the Grand Duke of Tuscany sends the ambassador Antonio Vecchietti to King Sebastian of Portugal in 1575 with the task of negotiating concessions in connection with the socalled “Europe contract”. At the same time Conrad Rott, Jacome de Bardes, Diego de Castro, Giovan

Battista Rovellasco and the Welser trading family strive for the so-called “Asia contract” having as object the lease of the pepper import from India to Portugal. What is the outcome of all this? Conrad Rott and his partners get hold of both contracts. But the companies Cavalcanti and Giraldi in Madrid, Bardi and Affaitata in Madrid and Bardi and Giraldi in Lisbon join the new Company for the import of pepper into Tuscany, in which Francesco I is the main shareholder with 100,000 ducats. It is hereby guaranteed that pepper from Lisbon does really get to Leghorn. It is an exchange deal with Conrad Rott: Pepper in exchange for an assortment of products from Tuscany, grains, textiles,

finely worked cloths of wool and linen, furnishing fabrics and similar wares. Filippo Sassetti gets offers from several sides. He enters the service for the Capponi trade family, which already has several subsidiaries in Spain and Portugal. A new subsidiary in Sevilla is planned. The families Salviati and Rinuccini from Florence and Vecchietti from Naples are also partners in the Capponis’ venture. And supporting the venture as an “unofficial principal” is the Grand Duke. Filippo Sassetti also accompanies the brother of the Grand Duke, Pietro de' Medici, on his trip to Spain in the spring of 1578 from the port of Leghorn. In Genoa, they were

received in splendour at the princely palace of the Doria. Filippo Sassetti moves his residence from Madrid to Seville and then to Lisbon. He shuttles between these two cities. He is thrilled by the pulsating atmosphere of Lisbon with its tremendous shipping traffic and market, impressive turnover of goods from many colonies, the many reports and rumours about foreign countries, nations and customs, fabulous riches, adventurous sailing and navigational and geographical “discoveries”. He begins to learn all about navigation and astronomical calculations. He combines it with experiences and observations on

ocean currents, magnetic fields and other natural phenomena important for navigation and with Ptolemy’s geometry and geography as a basis for the evaluation of these findings. At the same time, he deepens his knowledge of Greek and Latin which is needed both for the study of the ancient scientific works and for reading contemporary literature. Politically, Portugal endures a rough time. The young king Sebastian II gets involved in a belligerent adventure in Morocco ending in failure and dies childless in August 1578. On October 28, the old cardinal Henry is proclaimed king. After his death in

1580, the Portuguese royal house becomes extinct. Philipp II of Spain now claims his right of succession to the Portuguese throne. A superior Spanish army, supported by Italian mercenaries, attacks Portugal and Lisbon falls. Philipp II ascends to the Portuguese throne and from now on rules as King the whole Iberian Peninsula and a gigantic empire overseas. Filippo Sassetti remains unscathed through it all. He twice showed personal courage and earns appreciation of the rulers of Tuscany. In the first instance he prevents the plunder of the property of the foreign business people residing in the city by the Portuguese rebel leaders.

How? Nobody knows. Filippo Sassetti reports this event in a letter. Nothing more is known. In the second instance it is reported that on August 25, 1580 he makes his way to the Italian mercenary troops led by prince Prospero Colonna and brings medicine for the sick brother of the Grand Duke, Pietro de' Medici, who is among the troops. In December 1581, he writes a letter to his friend Francesco Valori in Florence. He reports that he has signed an attractive contract as a buyer of spices in India on behalf of Giovanni Battista Rovellasco, a successful Italian businessperson living in Lisbon, a native of Milan, a scion of a business family,

which has settled down in Antwerp, and a holder of the Portuguese title of a Fidalgo. Giovanni Battista Rovellasco takes over the shares of Conrad Rott after the latter has gone bankrupt in 1580. The deal is however financed by the German commercial house of Welser. This transaction also includes a prolongation of the “Asia contract” for three years, but excludes a participation in the so-called “Europe contract” on the monopoly of distribution. According to the new structure, Rovellasco holds a 17/24 majority of the initial capital of 224,000 Cruzados while three Portuguese businesspersons, Antonio Fernando de Elvas, Tomas

Ximénes and Luis Gomez become associated partners. The scope of business of the consortium remains the same as agreed in the initial contract of 1576. Every year five vessels hired from the Casa da India and the money required for the purchase of 3000 tons of pepper has to be organised, the pepper to be purchased and shipped to Lisbon, whereby half of the goods after the discharge in Lisbon would belong to the crown and the other half to the consortium. As the representative of Rovellasco in India, Filippo Sassetti buys pepper, 17/24 of the total quantity, and ships it; for three years with an annual salary of

1000 ducats. Another 600 ducats are added for his two Florentine assistants. He is supposed to buy from the local producers, or better, from the rulers of the small coastal “states” lying between Goa and Cochin. The Portuguese has set up a structure in which the private local traders lose their right of direct sale and the local “princes” get the privilege to make the deal according to “contracts” to this effect. Filippo Sassetti is responsible for the purchase, the transport of the goods to the port of Cochin and to get them punctually loaded on the ships to Portugal. Filippo Sassetti likes his job. He has two residences, one in Goa and another

in Cochin. His remuneration is more than opulent in relation to the costs of living “in keeping with his status”. He is entitled to call himself an “Agent” or even a “Minister of His Majesty”, as the consortium Rovellasco acts as a direct representative of the government. Some even consider him as “the first man behind the viceroy”. Filippo Sassetti finds the environment fascinating. But he is depressed because of the corruption, ignorance, arrogance of the Portuguese authorities and the indescribably low social and human standard of the majority of the “colonisers”. The yearly rhythm of the business gives

Filippo Sassetti sufficient leisure. However, he can not undertake long trips. He only knows the coastal towns. He is permitted to do private businesses. He engages in trade with China, whose products bring high profits in Lisbon. He has already known about this market since his time in Lisbon. The humanist and scholar in him do also awake again. He keeps his eyes and ears open. He starts writing letters to relatives, friends, his fellow academicians and his “ruler” in Florence. Long letters. He collects information on questions of meteorology, botany, zoology, the climate, the flora and the fauna of India, the customs, the market, philosophy, religion, science, astronomy, medicine, and even about

thoughts of Indian scholars “on the origin and the duration of the world.” The Grand Duke Francesco I is interested in the scientific knowledge of the Indians on healing plants and medicinal herbs. Filippo Sassetti reports on that and sends plants and seeds to Florence. He also runs a botanical garden in Goa within his private compound in order to cultivate and study such plants. His Indian doctor helps him to establish new contacts with educated Indians. He learns a lot as he is eager to learn. Many are the things he considers to be wise, sublime and admirable. He doesn’t hold back his admiration in the letters. He is, however, always cautious

– in particular in his letters to the Cardinal Ferdinando de' Medici – not to arouse suspicions of departing from the ‘right Christian faith'. While admiring Indian wisdom and the old teachings he does not forget to emphasise that the local religious rituals, thoughts and practices are ridiculous and ‘primitive' as these are not Christian-like. ***** Filippo Sassetti is an observer. He observes. He narrates a lot in his letters. “From Portugal do arrive every year 2500 or 3000 men or children of the most forlorn kind at all, one fourth or one third of whom, and sometimes one half are getting lost at sea: the others,

who arrive alive, are put ashore: then comes death or crime and collects them all, and most of them find an evil end, except a few of the noblemen or some others who have the address of relatives or can somehow rise by their own virtue.” Unlike Megasthenes he is a Christian and that at the core of his heart. He is, however, overwhelmed seeing the high culture in India comparing to his own. Detailed reports of his observations are available in the book: LIES WITH LONG LEGS. Discoveries, Scholars, Science, Enlightment. Documentary Narration, 404 pages, ISBN 81-87374-32-2, SAMSKRITI, New Delhi, 2004.

In our context, we focus more on his report on language. On languages, he reported in a few sentences in two letters. We reproduce here the literal translation which we have read several times: “...We may say, so it seems to me, that the disease of this century is that in all parts of the world sciences are (written) in a language other than the one which is being spoken; by which disease all these people are affected as well, since their language differs so much from the one in which their science is (written) that they need 6 years’ time to learn it; this because they do not act as the Jews, who teach their children the language of the

laws as we teach parrots to speak; but these here have the grammar and make use of it. The language in itself is pleasant and has a beautiful sound, because of the many elements, of which they have up to 53, of which each has its own ground, because they let them all originate from the different movements of mouth and tongue. They translate easily our notions into their (language), and they deem that we cannot do the same with theirs into our language, because of the lack of half of the elements, or more. It is true that great difficulty is experienced when uttering their words with their sounds and accents (which is what they wish to say); and I

think that the cause thereof is to a great extent the different temper of the tongue, because eating at all times that so excellent leaf of herb which they call betel, which is largely astringent and drying, together with that fruit which they call ‘areca’, in ancient times called ‘avellana indica’, and the whole mixed with plaster, they have as a consequence their tongue and mouth dry and quick, whilst the contrary applies to us.” His second statement on this language is in the letter of January 22, 1586 to Bernardo Davanzati in Florence. Here the literal translation:

“Their sciences are written down in a language, which they call ‘sanscruta’, meaning well articulated, of which there is no memory when it was spoken, having (as I say) most ancient memories. They learn it as we do Greek and Latin and need much more time, thus they master it in six or seven years: and today’s language has many things in common with that one, wherein there are many of our names (with ‘our names’ he meant words from the Tuscan-Italian), particularly of the numbers the 6, 7, 8 and 9, God, snake, and many more.” That is all that Filippo Sassetti has

written about the Sanskrit language and about the spoken languages on the Malabar Coast. Nothing less, nothing more. In the first part, he expresses his observations and what he finds out from others. He describes the efforts of Brahmins to learn the language Sanskrit that was not spoken anymore. He then compares the amount of work and effort needed for learning the Sanskrit language with his efforts learning Europe’s languages of antiquity, Greek and Latin, completing his studies then in Lisbon. He knows what he wrote. He does not know the Sanskrit language. He only listens to the sounds when it is recited. Therefore, he compares only the sounds and asserts that there are sounds

in Sanskrit that he can hear but not articulate. He does not find any other reason for comparisons with languages of antiquity with each other. Sensibly, he does not try to. In the second part, he refers to the spoken languages. He listens to people, hears the sounds, enquires the meaning of words and ascertains that ‘today’s language has many things in common with that one, wherein there are many of our names, particularly of the numbers the 6, 7, 8 and 9, God, snake, and many more.” Does the assertion of ‘many things in common’ mean “comparing”? We count the years 1583 – 1586. The Portuguese had been holding the Malabar Coast for about

eighty years. Isn’t it a common historical experience that a diffusion of spoken language takes place in “colonised areas”? What is the significance of similar sounds of counts from one to ten? And where is the origin of the decimal system? Anyway, this Filippo Sassetti was not an “intellectual prostitute”. He was discovered during the first wave of Indology around the middle of the 19th century (in 1855). He has been chosen as “chief witness”, to be the first who felt that there was something like a stem of ‘Indo-European’ languages. Filippo Sassetti: the ‘first Indologist’, the forerunner of ‘comparative linguistics’.

And this has been repeated thereafter again and again. Manipulation? Forgery? Or both? Where and when should he have said or written what is repeatedly credited to him? That he is the first who reports on similarities between Sanskrit and European languages (yes in the plural!)? And there is another better fitting variation: He had found similarities between Sanskrit and the classical languages of European antiquity, Greek and Latin. As sources his letters are always mentioned with an addressee, dates, etc.. Precisely. Precisely correct. Since the mid-nineteenth century. Everything should appear to be in order. Forgery perfect!

Who should have doubts, who should get hold of an Italian original, and that also in Tuscan–Italian–‘volgare’ of the 16th century deviating considerably from the modern, written Italian? We had doubts. We are simple minded. We do not find “similarities” in these languages. And after our search, we do not find anything like “similarities” in his writings. In defiance to indology, linguistics and modern history. ***** Padre Roberto de Nobili (1577-1656) appears on the scene as the next to Filippo Sassetti on Vatican track. He belongs to Rome. At the end of May

1605 he reaches the western coast of India and joins his missionary headquarter in the city of Goa, which was “snatched away” in 1510 by Alonso de Albuquerque from “the sultan of Bijāpur”. Roberto de Nobili is 28 years old only. He is impressed by the riches in the city, but is also shocked by the highhandedness and the evil deeds of the Portuguese Christians. His missionary zeal, however, is stronger than his disapproval of the Portuguese misdeeds. He intends to follow a more efficient conversion-offensive of the Catholic Church, more “human”, of course, in tow of the Portuguese “ruffians”.

Roberto de Nobili evolves to a mischievous missionary with a lot of criminal energy. To get an entry to the upper classes in India he does not hesitate to sell himself as a ‘Samnyâsin from Rome' – no, as that ‘Brahmin Samnyâsin from Rome'. His biography and his deeds are well documented in the book: LIES WITH LONG LEGS. Here we focus on languages and on Sanskrit only. Missionaries learn foreign languages only for the work of conversion. All missionaries. They have to do this exercise. Local languages in the south of India are Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam. There are many dialects too. The

Christian missionaries soon try to compile something like a “grammar”, language manuals, for forthcoming missionaries. Naturally, the quality is questionable, full of errors and simplifications. But there are no alternatives. Roberto de Nobili joins the Jesuit College of São Paulo at Goa. After a short while he is posted to the “Jesuit province” Malabar which is headed by “Provincial” Alberto Laerzio whom he already knew from Rome. So he starts from Goa to “Kochchi” (Cochin), where he arrives in January 1606. There he falls severely ill. Having recovered he is sent to the Jesuit mission in the

“fisherman coast” for convalescence. There he spends most of his time “to learn the difficult Tamil language”. Within seven months, so it is said, he is able to speak Tamil. Whatever “speaking Tamil” might mean. We take a note that he needed seven months to speak Tamil, while not being engaged in any other duties. The “Provincial”, Alberto Laerzio assigned Roberto de Nobili to the mission in Madurai, the capital of the region, because he learnt Tamil. We won’t bother to elaborate about facts like his “seven months” to learn to speak Tamil. But he will claim in August 1609 to have been able to speak fluently in the Sanskrit language. His secular

descendants, we apologise looking a little ahead, belonging to France, Germany and Great Britain were to need less time to master the Sanskrit language. They were not “intellectual prostitutes”. They were worse. They were simply swindlers. Why these false claims? Why have these swindles never been questioned by so-called scholars, modern scholars? These modern scholars we call “intellectual prostitutes”. Filippo Sassetti must have been out of his mind when he wrote in 1585 that Brahmins in India learned this ‘dead language’ (i.e. no more spoken) with great effort in 6-7 years in order to

understand the old books of ‘their sciences'. And the Principal Heinrich Roth of the Jesuit College in Agra (we shall deal with him in a while and apologise this looking a little ahead) also needed six long years to learn the Sanskrit language for the same purpose. We have to check who needed how much time to learn the Sanskrit language. The time factor would be the straightest way to judge the quality of “Sanskrit” that consorts like Friedrich Maximilian Müller could have learnt from consorts like Hermann Brockhaus at Leipzig. In Madurai, Roberto de Nobili discovers however, that all-important “scripts” of the Indians are written in a

language, which was no longer spoken. He also discovers that members of one social group called Brahmins learn this language systematically. All other social groups respect them as scholars, philosophers and experts on ancient writings. The Brahmins are not powerful in terms of property and wealth, but only in terms of intellectual influence. These facts are handed-down. Well, it was not necessary for Roberto de Nobili to discover all this. The reports of Filippo Sassetti could have been studied in Florence. And Florence is not too far from Rome. It has become the modern way of life to “discover” matters anew and get printed, copy

righted, patented discovery.

as

one’s

own

No one knows, from whom Roberto de Nobili could have learnt the Sanskrit language and for how long. It is undeniable that Sanskrit is being called a “lingua guirindina” in Jesuit-Latin of that period. However, at the end of the 19th century, we apologise again for this looking ahead, our Max Müller was to state: “I can only talk about him as the first European Sanskrit scholar. A man who could quote sentences from Manamadharma, from Purānas and other works which until the most recent time were accessible only in manuscripts, must have had an

extraordinary knowledge of Sanskrit.” We keep this deductive power of Max Müller in mind. We are presently not discussing Roberto de Nobili’s Sanskrit knowledge. For us it is important to ascertain that he does not write on the Sanskrit language or does not teach anybody his Sanskrit language. He remains busy in spreading Christianity in the south of India. Later in 1656 he dies in India without ever leaving India after his arrival 1606. So, Sanskrit has not reached Europe through Roberto de Nobili. There are many contradicting statements about Roberto de Nobili vis-à-vis the Sanskrit language. Some say that he had

known Sanskrit as Sanskrit. Others say he had learnt the Sanskrit language because it was “indispensable for the fulfilment of his missionary task”, since at that time “even in educated Brahmin circles – indeed only very seldom – (Sanskrit) was supposed to have been the ‘colloquial language'”. On the other hand, it is also not denied, that the Sanskrit language has not been a “colloquial language” since time immemorial. They maintained that in the 16th and 17th century “research of Sanskrit were not conducted even by the Brahmins”. ***** We mentioned Heinrich Roth,

the

Principal of the Jesuit College in Agra. Being a Monk of the same Jesuit order as Roberto de Nobili he discovers the Sanskrit language as Sanskrit, as the first one. He is of German origin, born in Dillingen in 1620 as the son of a lawyer from Augsburg. After his term at school he becomes a legionnaire in the Swedish army, flees later from the army to Innsbruck, there he is almost beaten to death by a soldier, at his recovery he wishes to become a missionary. On the 25th October, 1639 he joins – almost 19 years old – the Jesuit order and is ordained as a priest ten years later. Another year later, in 1650, he is ordered, together with another

missionary, to travel to Ethiopia for missionary work. They sail from Livorno in Italy to Smyrna in Turkey, from there they reach travelling on land Isfahan, the then capital city of Persia. There at last they learn that Ethiopia has closed its borders for Catholic missionaries. What now? They decide to travel further to Goa. They do indeed reach the Jesuitstronghold in Goa in 1652, 48 years later than Roberto de Nobili. Biographies like the one of Heinrich Roth are typical not only for the Jesuits. They reveal the narrow gap between soldier and missionary, between adventurer and spy, between soldier of

fortune and maniac. Heinrich Roth is said to have learned in Goa the languages Kannada, Persian, Urdu and some others as well quite fast. We don’t know how. There is a lot among the things which are handed down to us in print as having happened which we are unable to comprehend. Heinrich Roth is transferred from Goa to Agra. Agra is the then capital city of the Mogul ruler in the North. He becomes the director of the local Jesuitcollege. There he learns the Sanskrit language for six years. He becomes aware of the significance of Sanskrit for the mission and writes around the year 1660 a grammar for the Sanskrit

language with explanations in Latin. So we are told. It is published, however, as a facsimile, 1988 in Leiden together with two of his manuscripts. Today’s Indologists confirm that Heinrich Roth’s grammar was the best compared with all others. This is no wonder. Because Roth copied from the perfect system of grammar by Panini, an all-time perfect work. He only added Latin notes. The transfer of the language named Sanskrit to Europe has therefore taken place on the ground of faulty grammars. We have searched after “Indological” acknowledgements of this state of affairs. In vain. This has not been a theme for “Indologists” yet. We get back

to Heinrich Roth. Besides missionary activities the Jesuit order in Agra is also a base for expeditions to scout overland routes to the north. Two padres arrived in Agra from Peking via Lhasa and Kathmandu. Whilst crossing the Himalayas in the winter one of them was so burnt out that he dies in Agra. The other one, Padre Johannes Grueber, could not fulfil the second half of his mission alone. Heinrich Roth is ordered to accompany Johannes Grueber to scout an overland route from Agra to Rome. Heinrich Roth is now 42 years old. We calculate the year to be 1662. These two actually find a feasible overland route for the

Society of Jesus. It takes more than one year. But by that time Rome has already decided to use the supposedly more secure Portuguese sea route to the western coast of India for the transport of missionaries. The “soldiers of Christ” are in a hurry. The sea route takes only four to five months. This is now 1664. Later it will be found out that up to 1690 out of 600 missionaries only about 100 reach India on the “more secure” sea route. This is life. The market value of human beings seems to have been just as then as it is today. Heinrich Roth takes all his manuscripts along with him to Rome. He has studied

the Sanskrit language, Sanskrit literature and Indian philosophy. Athanasius Kircher, a Jesuit scholar, advises and helps Heinrich Roth to put his manuscripts including his Sanskrit grammar in the Vatican library. His grammar was to be printed. The Austrian emperor also favours the publication. For the printing, he was to stay for some months in Europe. But Heinrich Roth is more important to the Jesuit order as a scout than Heinrich Roth as a Sanskrit scholar. The publication of the grammar could wait. The two seasoned scouts Heinrich Roth and Johannes Grueber are sent out to find an overland route to India via Russia and Persia. Heinrich Roth takes his manuscripts along with

him. A riot in Russia force them back to Turkey, to Istanbul. Johannes Grueber falls seriously ill there. Heinrich Roth goes on conscientiously with his scouting mission, alone, but via Turkey, Armenia and Persia. By mistake the manuscripts are left with Johannes Grueber. He brings them back to Rome after his convalescence. He deposits them in the papal archive. Heinrich Roth reaches Agra in 1666. Two years later he dies at the age of forty-eight. About two hundred years later, again we apologise for this looking ahead, Max Müller appreciates greatly his unpublished Sanskrit grammar. We are

upset. In 1988 it was published as facsimile in Leiden together with two more of his manuscripts. We are genuinely upset. Max Müller expires in 1900. And it is not on record that Max Müller ever had an entry to the papal archive in Rome. Some “Indologists” are striving for the rehabilitation of Heinrich Roth. But we are looking out for “indological” assessments of the fact that the coming of the language named Sanskrit to Europe and its spread took place on the basis of inadequate grammar books. There is, however, no publication on this fact. Absolutely a non-topic for “Indologists.” What does it mean?

Nevertheless we do get a small hint on why Franz Bopp went to Paris and not to Rome. His mentor Windischmann, professor of philosophy and history, knew little about Italy beyond the existence of the Medici rulers. Moreover as we remember Friedrich von Schlegel (1772–1829), the younger of the Schlegel brothers, had published his book in 1808 “on the language and wisdom of the Indians”. He acquired his knowledge of Sanskrit in Paris, as it is mentioned in detail in our fifth Chapter. So Franz Bopp went to Paris. Even a short study-visit of the Jesuit archive would have disclosed to Franz Bopp that Rome was not only rich in

field-reports from India. There were also Sanskrit manuscripts and grammar books, particularly that grammar book compiled by Heinrich Roth (1620– 1668), almost a fellow countryman of Franz Bopp. If only Franz Bopp and his academic teacher hadn’t been so ignorant! But then, they were not the only ones. But the fact remains that catholic missionaries are not responsible for the spread of a language named Sanskrit in Europe. ***** Nothing is on record that could indicate that European Christians knew anything about a language called Sanskrit before 1750. Portugal becomes the centre of the

European market by the end of the 16th Century. “Royal” dynasties are dominant. No one ever wanted to know how ruling dynasties became ruling dynasties so far. In our present context we won’t get into this issue. For detailed knowledge on this issue we refer to the book: LIES WITH LONG LEGS. The news of profitable “business” by “colonization” does the rounds. Why should the other Christian maritime people of Europe not have a share of the profit pie? English, French and Dutch mobilise their resources to participate in this “business”. All odd continuous war activities are allowed. The “World War” continues in the Era of Vasco da

Gama. These English, French and Dutch people also capture each others’ ships and fight for control of the sea routes. In 1588 the English defeat the Spanish armada. This is the beginning of the end of the monopoly held by the Iberian Peninsula. The new naval powers begin attacking the Portuguese strongholds in India. This happened elsewhere too and in an increasingly efficient manner. England, France and Netherlands set up their own “East India Companies”. The English “ruffians” and their employer camouflage themselves more effectively as traders. Their “East India Company” was set up in 1600 as a monopoly trade company under the name: “Governor and

Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies” and entered into the register of companies in London. The Dutch set up their “Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie” with the blessing of their royal government in 1602, of course with monopoly rights. The French set up their “Compagnie Française des Indes Orientales” in 1664. King Louis XIV did more than just give his blessings; by 1668, he becomes the largest shareholder and kept the Company under his control. The Britons begin their “trade campaign” 1612 in the unfavourable northern part of the western coast in Surat. As “traders”, of course. Surat is still occupied by the Portuguese. But

Portugal is then almost swallowed by Spain. And the Britons had defeated the Spanish armada. They naturally did not come to Surat as petitioners. Finally, in 1700 Surat comes under British possession. They had learnt from Portuguese experiences. The Portuguese were not able to take land in the interior of the country. Lack of resources or lack of vision. The Britons are not satisfied with just “strongholds”. They start to conquer as much of the hinterland as possible. They are also in search of other ports. They find them on the eastern coast of India, in the delta of Bengal and also some in Southeast-Asia. The same game all over. Wherever Christians from Europe sailed

overseas, they practised robbery in all its variations. At times camouflaged as crusades, at times as expeditions. Their ships do not carry commodities from home; they carry “ruffians”, arms, missionaries and the Christian cross. It is inherent in the nature of their waractivities that the European Christians in India rob and murder each other too. Each European country wants to monopolise the whole show, possess all. But it is just too big a “loot market” for any one country. These European Christians countries do not live at peace with each other. Not even at home. There are differences too in the resources at their disposal. This gets projected on their new “hunting ground” as well. The

Portuguese and the French gradually lose their possessions in India to the Britons and to the Dutch in Southeast-Asia. The dream of “East Indies” was, however, over for the Britons when the Dutch exterminated brutally the British, the Japanese and the Portuguese colonisers in the “massacre of Amboyna” in 1623. On the eastern coast of India, the French and the English had been vexing each other for quite a time. The main stronghold of the French is Pondicherry and of the English the “Fort St. David” in Cuddalore and the port of Madras. The English win ultimately. From Madras, they start to interfere systematically in the local and regional politics. They sign contracts with local

and regional rulers as new “settlers” and “traders” after they have determined who should be the ruler. How does it work? Since the establishment of the first Islamic domination in India in 1192, a time of upheavals has set in. None of the Islamic dynasties survives in India for long. The Arabian historian Ibn Khaldun would have felt a deep satisfaction, could he have studied the Islamic dynasties in India. As we know, he studied in the 14th century the Islamic dynasties in Arabia and established the dialectic theory on rise and fall of dynasties. No dynasty had reigned for more than 120 years. In India, it was no

different. Even the Mogul dynasty, established by Babur in 1526, reached its peak under Akbar (1542-1605) and fell apart in the 5th generation under Aurangzeb in 1707. The Islamic conquerors were immigrants. They were bloodthirsty tyrants in the country, but they lived there, raised taxes and maintained their power mainly with the help of local mercenaries. They were not out to convert people to Islam indiscriminately. They were not to destroy the culture of the people. No, they ignored their culture. They were busy enough with themselves. All Islamic rulers were always on the alert because of the greed

for power of their grown-up relatives. Anytime they could become a victim. However one evaluated the Islamic way of exercising power, it cannot be denied that Islamic rulers had been able to establish a kind of calculable “balance” of power for centuries. In other words: everybody knew who the friends and the enemies were. After Aurangzeb two new facets enriched the fight for power. Also non-Islamic landlords and “princes” started participating in the battle for power. The number of regional wars increased. The European Christians applied a strategy of exploiting the situation, which was unknown in India so far. They acted as if

they were solely interested in trade and market and not in robbery, definitely not in establishing their rule for sustained exploitation, and offered themselves as mediators in the struggle for power. They interfered everywhere, flung their cannons and soldiers to bear, disturbed the balance of power in an unpredictable manner and thus increased their influence. This strategy of establishing rule for sustained exploitation by European Christians has continued to sustain. It is no different today. This is also a distinct sign that the “World War”, declared by the European Christians in the 15th century, has not come to an end yet. The Era of Vasco da Gama is still going strong.

The more decisive difference was, however, that the Islamic ruffians settled down in the country since the 12th century. The Christian ruffians in India had never intended to stay on; their intention was to rob, to carry away all they could, to exploit for a time as long as possible; to destroy old technologies, to establish new production-anddistribution conditions and to create a new market for their own products. This is the nature of sustained exploitation of foreign lands, though disguised under various names and labels for camouflage. What is behind euphemisms like “United Nations”, “World Bank”, “World Trade Organisation”, “International community”, or

“International division of labour”, just to mention a few. For those interested in details of this significant historical process we refer to the book: LIES WITH LONG LEGS. We focus here only on the Britons who gradually gained influence and started telling us stories. What kind of persons were they? The higher-ranking ones were adventurers and “soldiers of fortune” in the tradition of pirates, equipped with royal “blessings” like William Jones (1746 – 1794) who will be knighted to “Sir” and to take up the issue of our search after Heinrich Roth. *****

We may take any book of references or any standard book of “modern history” and we will know: “In 1786 William Jones, the founder of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta, discovered close linguistic affinity between Sanskrit, the language of Aryans, and Greek, Latin, and the Germanic and Celtic languages. This epochal finding laid the foundation stone for exploration of the IndoEuropean family of languages, to which according to our contemporary knowledge more languages belong to than Jones had assumed in the beginning. Since the late 19th century more and more researchers came to the conviction that the origin of this

Indo-European family of languages was to be searched for in the spread of the East European and central Asiatic steppe.” Who is this demigod of modern history and of linguistics William Jones and how does he discover? To “discover close linguistic affinity between Sanskrit, the language of Aryans, and Greek, Latin, and the Germanic and Celtic languages” he has to have learnt the Sanskrit language. Where, when, from whom and for how long does William Jones learn the Sanskrit language? Questions like this are yet unusual. Therefore, there are no answers. Therefore, intensive search

was called for. Detailed reports of the search are published in: LIES WITH LONG LEGS. This much in our present context. The family background and the early life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller resemble so much to William Jones. We won’t speculate on this aspect. It is only an interesting note. William Jones’ grandfather was a small farmer in Llanffihangel, a forgotten Welsh village. His son William is born in 1680. As a child, he shows a keen interest in calculations, whatever that means. It is self-education, of course. One day, he moves to London in search of better prospects. He never returns to Wales. In

that remote Welsh village, he couldn’t learn anything that was useful in London. But he is strong and healthy. He gets recruited for the warship “Vigo” which set sail to the “West Indies” in 1702. He is then 22 years old. “Vigo” is put into action in the Spanish War of Succession (1701 - 1714). And what does he do in the “West Indies”? There is a touchy story. “He and his shipmates swarmed into the city in search of plunder. Characteristically, in an action that would have been typical of his son later, he did not loot an alehouse. He entered a bookstore, his only booty a pair of scissors”. What does this story tell us? Well!

Father William of our William returns unscathed. On board, he learns navigational calculations. He earns his living by giving lessons in mathematics. He tries to contact other “mathematicians”. He establishes contacts and counts Edmund Halley and Isaac Newton among his friends, so it is said. In 1712 he becomes a member of the “Royal Society” of mathematicians at the age of 32. He reaches the peak of his career as vice-president of that “Royal Society” with an annual earning of £200. A remarkable achievement considering that he hasn’t had any formal education. At quite a late age he marries the youngest daughter of a furniture maker,

George Nix, the main competitor of Chippendale, who, however, was never to know fame. This marriage marks a social high for this son of a small Welsh farmer in London. As the youngest daughter, Mary Nix feels the full impact of her father’s frustration of not being able to climb the “Chippendale peak", though it has been all the time so near. After her marriage, she realises that her intelligent husband, too, has to sweat away only because he lacks a formal degree. The first son of Mary and William, George, dies soon after birth. Daughter Mary is born in 1736 and our William on September 28, 1746, a late arrival in

the family. Three years later father William dies at the age of 69 in London. Mary Nix-Jones tailors and stitches to earn a meagre living. Mary learns the craft also. Mary is not a genius. She will get married in 1781 at the age of 46 to a prosperous retired businessperson. Until her marriage, she supports her mother. His relentlessly ambitious mother raises our William. She stamps into his mind two mottos: “Read and you will know.” And “Always show what you know”. Mary Nix–Jones is determined to spare her son William the fate of her husband William and of her father George. Our William learns early the spirit of “power based on robbery and on colonising”

land “overseas”. He is rigorously drilled to climb to the top in the third generation, so to speak. He is an unlucky child. First he is injured in a fire. An accident immediately thereafter causes permanent damage to his right eye. Mary Nix–Jones knows how important the exclusive “Grammar School” in Harrow was for a career. Though it was a very expensive school, she somehow manages to enrol seven-year-old William in 1753 there. Clinging to “network connections” has always been the key to career. William’s thighbone is fractured in a fight at the age of nine. He loses a whole year at school. This setback motivates

him to a powerful drive. He withdraws from all activities to study privately, to learn lessons in advance of others. He refines his mother’s motto: Read more than your schoolmates and you will know more than they will. But be at the same time helpful to them. He begins also to adorn himself with borrowed plumes. Translate. And translate. Why so much Latin and Greek? The dead languages? France and Spain are the most powerful countries in the world. Why not also their languages? But Harrow is not designed for modern languages. Therefore, so it is said, he learns French, Italian and Spanish during his holidays. Privately. How? From whom? We do not know. No one asks

such questions. Apparently, he begins with Hebrew also because he wants to read the “Bible in original”, in particular certain psalms and translate them. We wonder. Through Hebrew, so it is said, he soon comes to Arabic. We wonder again. How? Who taught him? Is it important to know these details than just believe? He completes Harrow. His mother and friends of the family want him to study law. But he is interested in the study of literature in Oxford. In the spring of 1764 he is almost eighteen. He finds the lectures at Oxford uninteresting; his co– students as well. They were more interested in “town and gown”. He

concentrates on private studies as he did in Harrow. He soon masters all Greek classics. The tutors in Oxford were surprised. So it is reported. On October 31, 1764, he receives a scholarship of the “Sir Simon Bennett foundation”. He spends his vacations in London. There he attends Angelo's school for riding and fencing. No, not to get the polish of a “gentleman”, as others generally did, but solely for his much needed physical training, as he has to spend “long, strenuous hours of study in stuffy (or cold), poorly lighted rooms” His mother and his sister tailored the expensive sportswear. By chance he meets in London, so it is

handed down, a Syrian from Aleppo called “Mirza” who speaks Arabic. “Whereupon he impulsively decided to learn Arabic”. Obviously, the chroniclers don’t remember anymore that our William Jones had picked up Arabic whilst he had learnt Hebrew in Harrow. Why does he decide to learn Arabic once again? Well, let it be. Mirza is willing to teach him and accompanies him to Oxford. As a return, he demands free board and lodging. “For an hour or so every morning Mirza orally translates Antoine Galland’s edition of ‘Les Mille et Une Nuits’ into Arabic, Jones transcribing the rough version and then

later polishing it and eliminating forms and constructions that differed from the only standards he had, Thomas Erpenius’ Arabic grammar and Jacobus Golius’ Arabic–Latin grammar.” Isn’t this an incomprehensible procedure? Any averagely intelligent person would use original Arabic texts, which were available in the library of Oxford, “Bodleian”, plentifully. Well, let it also be. Very soon William Jones “had to let Mirza go”. He cannot afford Mirza. His hope that Oxford–tutors and his fellow students would take more interest in Arabic and share the costs proves to be wrong. By the way, we do know nothing

more than that Mirza is a Syrian having no knowledge of classical Arabic. Nonetheless, believe it or not, William Jones manages to master the classical Arabian language and discovers that there were only a few English translations of Arabic literature. He discovers also that the Persian language contained many Arabic elements. How? Self taught? Of course! How could this have functioned? We are only told that it functioned. No one has expressed any apprehensions. “His knowledge of Hebrew, Arabic, Persian and Turkish brought him the reputation of a scholar of oriental languages.” When did he learn Turkish? Well!

With this fame to ride on William Jones wishes to free his mother from the financial burden of his studies. And, as luck would have it, one of his friends intends to travel to India for the East India Company. He wants to prepare for his friend a kind of instructions, a grammar book, for the “Indian language”. He finds a collection of official correspondence between Indian “princes” and the East India Company. How could this have functioned? No one has told us. Instead we are informed that: “He also began with a muchneeded revision of Meninski’s dictionary, especially the Persian part, but eventually dropped the ambitious project because the East India

Company did not act upon his indirect suggestion that it should agree to pay the considerable expenses.” By a stroke of luck, he gets an offer to become the private tutor of the sevenyear-old Viscount George John Althorp, the son of Earl John Spencer. In the spring of 1765. He is not yet eighteen. How? Though the term “network connections” was not created yet, the practice had ever been in use. Recommendations around corners. This paves the way of this upstart spurred on by ambitions to reach the top. William Jones begins to live with the Earl’s family at Wimbledon from the summer 1765 onwards establishing important

contacts of all kinds of higher ups and travels of course with the family everywhere. In the summer of 1766 the “Dean of Winchester”, Jonathan Shipley, visits the Spencers in Wimbledon with his whole family. Jonathan Shipley is a close friend of Sir Edmond Burke and well known in high political circles as well. William Jones thanks Jonathan Shipley for his recommendation. How, when and why? Anyway. He meets his eldest daughter Anna Maria and falls in love instantly and for life. William Jones meets in 1768 at the Spencers the 31 years old Hungarian-

born Polish diplomat Count Charles Reveiczki, who has just translated “Hafiz's odes” into English from Persian. A half-an-hour meeting. He is, apparently, more advanced in Persian than William Jones, who admires Count Reveiczki as a poet. Even a professional diplomat is pleased to meet at Spencer’s an admirer of his knowledge of Persian literature. AndWilliam Jones has learnt how to admire nicely. This contact was to continue for two decades, by correspondence in classical Latin. So it is said. He has developed a strategy of a career-making: hug firmly, win celebrities by writing friendly

flattering letters. He makes his way to the top just by writing letters, writing letters and writing letters. Unstoppably. Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not achieve this ability of a career making. Instead, he practiced talking nicely. Count Reveiczki leads William Jones away from Greek and Latin to Arabic and Persian. The fabulous Orient is the general trend and the spirit of that period. The following episode manifests how the “network connections” were created and how it functioned. On September 5, 1768 William Jones requests Lady Spencer in a letter to ask Lord Spencer to approach the 3rd Duke of Grafton,

who is a member of the cabinet of king George III from 1767-70, and exercise his influence to get him the “almost honorary Professorship” (approx. £400, - for “three to four lectures in the year”) on “modern languages” at Oxford. On September 9, he puts some more pressure on the “Ladyship” in a follow up letter: Friends “inform me that the Professorship of Modern Languages is the only office that can be held by a layman in the university, that it requires no sort of residence, that it is given away by the First Lord of the Treasury, and that this is a thing which does not clash with any ministerial affairs.” We restrain ourselves from comment.

Well, it didn’t work out with this “almost honorary” Professorship. We do not know why. But William Jones continues to market his “knowledge of the oriental languages” so impressively that the same 3rd Duke of Grafton soon offered him “the Position of interpreter for Eastern languages”. It is an extremely lucrative offer for someone who can’t produce a certificate, hasn’t published anything yet to manifest his assumed knowledge of oriental languages. And this offer, coming when William Jones is so distressed because of his inability to financially help his mother and his sister nor able to express his love to Anna Maria Shipley. So Dame Fortune smiles

at last! But William Jones refuses the offer in writing. So it is said. Why he refused? This particular letter has not been found. We are, however, for once tempted to speculate here. If he really had been able to fulfil the requirements of a government interpreter for oriental languages, he would have accepted the offer. Sooner or later he would have become an ambassador in one of the oriental countries. But to act as an interpreter in government business is always a serious business. Here there was no room for bluff, boast or overstatement as in seminars or in drawing rooms. He finds,

however, an elegant way to hide his probable inability to perform the job. It is said that he had instead warmly recommended as a more suitable candidate for this post Mirza, that Syrian from Aleppo, who, as we remember, was not even proficient in contemporary Arabic. Mirza doesn’t get that job, of course. But William Jones has seemingly saved face. This letter of recommendation is not found either. In November 1768 he gets his ‘A.B. degree' from Oxford. In the late autumn of 1769, the Spencers travel to France. William Jones has to accompany them. For seven long months. During this period, he is bored, starts thinking about

his future and claims to have learned the Chinese writing system. How? From whom? Is that important to know? He also claims to have written “A Chinese ode Paraphrased” and “The Verbal Translation”. “Having learned the Chinese writing system, he turned to Confucius. First he read Philippe Couplet’s translation of the works before trying the Royal library copy of the Shih Ching (classic of the odes), a collection of three hundred odes supposedly gathered by Confucius, in the original.” Well! Seventeen sixtyeight was an important year for William Jones. King Christian VII of Denmark wants to get Mirza

Madhi's official history of Nadir Shah Ta'rikh-i-Nadir translated from Persian into French. He requests the English and not the French government to find a translator. Why does he so choose? No question, no answer. Although William Jones has not published any Persian translations yet, the English government asks him (the “network connections” worked!) to translate the book. He reads the manuscript, so it is said, discovers great differences between its language and what he claimed was “Persian” as he has learned it. Well, he first says that he considered this book on a raging tyrant boring, barbaric and not worthy of a translation. In addition he doesn’t find the task of a translation interesting

enough. He obviously didn’t grasp the importance of this offer by the English government yet. He is also young and inexperienced. Anyway, he returns the manuscript to the “Secretary of State” with an additional remark in a covering letter “that he lacked the ability”. This covering letter too has not been found yet. In that letter, so it is reported, he had proposed Major Alexander Dow as a more suitable translator who was known by his translated History of Hindostan. The same procedure as it was with the Syrian Mirza. Alexander Dow refuses. Reasons for his refusal are also not known. As a trained military man in the army of the East India

Company he might have learnt the official language of the Mogul, which enabled him to translate books of a historiographer of the Mogul dynasty. He might have known the distinction between Persian and Mogul-Persian. Anyway. The English government is embarrassed. It doesn’t wish an important European personality like King Christian VII of Denmark to turn to the French government for the translation. This would have been a national disgrace. The 3rd Duke of Grafton asks William Jones urgently to translate. He is thus compelled to prove his “scholarship” as an “Orientalist”. How does he do it?

Instinctively, William Jones does just the right thing, though it was quite expensive for him. He hires professional aid to get the work done. In the end the fame was to come only to him and bring rich returns to make up for the investment. The procedure might appear to be a sort of plagiarism to some people. It becomes even worse. No one covers the printing costs for the L'Historie de Nader Shah. In addition to 40 printed copies he has to get one copy elegantly bound for the king. The King of Denmark thanks him in right royal style for the elegantly bound copy and honours him by offering an affiliation in the “Royal Society of Copenhagen”. The English king George III published the

letter of thanks of Christian VII officially. ***** William Jones reviews his recent past and gets into panic. His mother did everything to lead him to a brilliant career in some profession. He realises that Orientalism would never be a career. He has enough of being “Oriental Jones”. He is drilled to make a career that would lead him to fame and wealth. The role of the private tutor stands in the way. The boring trip to France with the Spencers! Lord Althorp is going to be thirteen soon. He wants to take leave of the Spencers. Not a problem, if the situation is mutually worked out.

Mutual understanding means, however, paying heed to others’ needs and interests. He does not think of paying heed to others. He just quits telling the Spencers that he takes up study of Law in the Middle Temple. His mother and friends congratulate him that now he is on the right road to highest political offices. And, by the time he realises how aggrieved the Spencers were, it is already too late. He will write many overwhelming letters to the son and daughter of the Lord, visit Lord Althorp at Harrow frequently and send palatable reports about the young lord to Lady Spencer. Writing letters is especially for him a

hard and tiresome practice. There are no typewriters, no electric light. And William Jones had that old eye damage. He is also short of money. Writing letters cost money for ink, paper, envelopes and postage. And time. A lot of time. A part of life. But, in the process, he has honed the art of letter writing to a fine point, a veritable weapon for his career’s battles. Mostly, he writes long letters. And imaginatively too. Using foreign words, short references to current literature, to current politics and of course quotes from ancient Greek and “oriental” literature. Through this course he learns to use words effectively. He writes Lady Spencer not less than 146 letters, and to the young lord, no less

than 80 letters. In all, there are 596 of his letters traced by his various admiring biographers. Many are lost, of course, because around 1850 SirWilliam Jones disappears from public consciousness. And the letters, which do not show William Jones in a favourable light, are not available to the public, naturally. As usual, William Jones finds studying law dull-witted, boring. But he accepts this for the sake of his career. Don’t the lawyers also deal with words? He invests a lot of time to nurture all those contacts, which he had made at the Spencers. Unlike in Harrow or in Oxford he doesn’t work through the law syllabus in advance to impress his

fellow students. Instead, he makes all efforts to remain present as an “Orientalist”. He publishes a grammar book for Persian. None of his biographers ever examined the quality of this grammar book. Instead, many unbelievable tales are told about how William Jones had managed to compile it. He learnt Persian by himself. He was only aided by the grammar and dictionary of Meninski. While learning he decided to revise Meninski’s grammar book and so on. He gets it printed and earns “the fame of being the Persian Jones”, the “linguist Jones” and the “Oriental Jones”. How many copies of this grammar were

printed? Forty-one copies again? Who knows? Later, much later, in Kolkata, in 1784 we shall get indications about the real quality of “Persian Jones” in an episode narrated. We apologise this looking ahead. We shall get back to this episode. ***** The following Episode in 1771 is typical of William Jones. It marks also the scenario of the European culture. In spite of many wars between England and France, the libraries of both countries co-operated with each other receiving manuscripts from the “colonies”. They exchanged facsimile pages of yet undeciphered manuscripts all over

Europe for collective exercise. Abraham-Hyacinthe AnquetilDuperron (1731–1805) is a prevented priest with a great inclination for exotic languages. The Catholic mission helped him to learn Hebrew, Arabic and Persian with a small scholarship. He goes to meet the Sinologist LerouxDeshauterayes in Paris in 1754 and finds four hand-written pages in an unknown language lying on the table incidentally whilst waiting. Yes, only four pages. Those pages were taken from a manuscript brought from India, kept in the "Bodleian", at Oxford University. He is immediately fascinated. On the spot he

decides to learn that language. He doesn’t wait for a scholarship. He joins the French navy to India in order to learn languages there. In Pondicherry, at the eastern coast of South India, he gets an opportunity to begin with Sanskrit. But then he is transferred to Surat, at the northwest coast of India. In 1758, he begins to learn Parsi from Persian priests there. Parsis are Persians who fled to India during the spread of Islam in Persia. He returns in 1762 after more than seven years with an English vessel while the seven-year-war between England and France was going on. He has learnt Parsi for four long years! In Oxford, he identifies that yet un-

deciphered manuscript as “Zend-Avesta” by Zarathustra in ancient Persian. In 1763 he becomes a member of the “Académie des Inscriptions” in Paris. He works some years to translate “Zend-Avesta” to French. Finally, he publishes three thick volumes under the title Zend-Avesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre Zend-Avesta. The first volume contains also an account of his Indian adventure, remarks about his own studies and difficulties and a few critical remarks on some Oxford celebrities. These remarks on Oxford celebrities were considered by the Britons to be inappropriate attacks by a Frenchman. In 1771. Abraham-Hyacinthe Anquetil-

Duperron was to get an appropriate answer. William Jones volunteers to fulfil this national duty being the greatest Persian scholar and Orientalist in the nation. He prefers to choose the style of an anonymous letter for a satire. It turns out to be a volley of dirt as review of the publication on approximately 50 pages in French. Title: Lettre à Monsieur A*** du P***. He spreads suspicions that the text translated by “‘Monsieur Anquetil-Duperron” was perhaps only a recent forgery. Possibly “Monsieur Anquetil-Duperron” had only translated from another translated text. His French was also poor. His control of “Oriental

languages” must have been even poorer. Well, Sigmund Freud was yet to come, but when he did, he would probably see through the mechanism of "psychological projection" behind the volley of dirt flung by William Jones. Impute to others’ dishonesties that you practise in similar situations. This practice has remained effective in our time as well. William Jones receives a publicly published letter from Thomas Hunt, one of the Oxford celebrities attacked, “thanking Jones on behalf of himself, Oxford and England”. A Frenchman humiliated in his own field and in his own language. This episode throws a revealing light

also into the morality of “scholars” of the times. Of that time only? Well! We become apprehensive about the scholarly culture in general at Oxford University and about its role as ideological front-runner in particular. We shall keep our eyes open and watch Oxford University. In 1774 William Jones becomes a registered barrister. He emphasizes “the need for honest barristers in an age of widespread corruption”. On March 5, 1775, for example, he writes a letter to Lady Spencer: “Madam, My sincerest thanks are due to my Lord and your Ladyship for

your kindness and attention to me, for which I shall ever be grateful. Should Mr. Eden attempted to leave Lord Suffolk’s office, Lord Spencer’s good word would undoubtedly be highly advantageous to me, and, independently of any idea of advantage, it will be very flattering to me as long as I live: but I have so great a veneration for Mr. Robinson, and am so much obliged to him, that I hope he will not only escape this violent attack upon his health, but return to a post which he has filled with so much honour and ability. All these matters are very precarious, but, whatever success I may have, I shall be glad of an opportunity to

make a tender of my services to government, which I would do consistently with my professional views as well as with my principles of attachment to the constitution of my country.” The East India Company had conquered large regions in India. This was one of the largest sources of revenue for the kingdom. All Indian assets were transferred to the “Crown” in 1773 and were managed from then on by a “Governor-general” together with a “Council” of four members. Between these two institutions, there was the “Supreme Court of Judicature”. Four well-paid judges ran the Supreme Court.

All were appointed for five years by Parliament and by the Executive Board of the Company by consensus. Stephen Caesar LeMaistre, one of the judges of the Supreme Court in Kolkata, dies in November 1777. The news reaches England in the spring of 1778. William Jones hankers for this post, because he was the foremost “Orientalist” in the country and a lawyer as well. Notwithstanding that he still considered Persia and India almost to be the same. Does it not make a difference? And he had access to Lady Spencer. Was it corruption? Does it make a difference? Anyway. He writes on May 24, 1778 to Lady

Spencer: “... Your Ladyship has, perhaps, heard that there is a great probability of my being thought worthy of a seat on the bench of Judges in India. My predilection for the East and my desire to unite Persian and Law make me eager for the appointment; but I must confess that a salary of £6000 a year to commence from the day of my embarkation and of which I know from the best authority that I need not spend more than two thousand, has contributed not a little to my eagerness; for, although my professional gains are very handsome and are continually increasing, I must be twenty years in England before I can save as much as in India I might easily

lay by five or six; and on my return (if it pleased God to permit it) I might still be a young man with £30 000 in my pocket, so that I might proceed at the bar or in parliament with ease to myself and perhaps with advantage for others. The Chancellor has declared that he means to recommend me to the King as Mr. LeMaistre’s successor; Lord Mansfield’s kindness I may depend upon; and Lord North (who never gives wrong hopes) has talked to me both at his own house and at his levee in a manner, which sufficiently indicates his favourable intentions: with such a triumvirate I can hardly fail; but many things may intervene; and, as no ships will sail to Bengal till

late in the autumn, they may keep me in suspense for the whole summer, unless my friends exert their interest to have the matter decided as soon as possible. For this purpose Sir Grey Cooper’s good offices may be very useful to me; I believe that he has the honour of being well acquainted with Your Ladyship; and if, on your recommendation, he would give me leave to call upon him in Parliament Street, which I cannot do without his permission, I might possibly be able to interest him in my favour. – I am fully persuaded, that, if your Ladyship has the power, you will not want the inclination to assist on this occasion, Madam, Your Ladyship’s much obliged and ever faithful servant

W. Jones.” The “celebrated humanist” William Jones never asked himself why he could earn in India in 5 years an amount for which he would have to work 20 hard years in England. Nor his humanistdescendants do ask. Well! No questions, no answers. William Jones is now 32 and has farreaching plans. With the prospect of quick money in India, he wanted to fulfil three wishes: propose to Anna Maria Shipley, seek a seat in the lower house and return to Persian literature. But Bathurst’s successor as Lord Chancellor is supposedly “a villain, is

supposed to be against William Jones”. This is what William Jones claimed. A decision is delayed. He runs his legal practise half-heartedly and lobbies vigorously for his appointment. He knows practically all the important people. And they are all rich. Only he doesn’t have any money, although he is recognised as a scholar by all who counted. Why so? What is wrong with him? He does not find an answer. ***** There were crises in the colonies. Particularly in “America”. King George III, the nobility and the rich and powerful in London wanted to squeeze the maximum booty-profit out of the

“colonies”. And wherever there is a lot of money to make there is also a lot of greed, fights for influence and power. Those subjects of King George III, the European Christian ruffians in “America”, by now knew better and – being of the same blood and equally greedy – were having second thoughts: why share the riches with the King and others at home? The Idea of an “America” free of the King and England had taken seed and ultimately resulted in the “Declaration of Independence” on July 4, 1776. Wars followed between the “colonialists”turned-rebels and the British troops. There followed a period of ding-dong

battles on the fields in “America” and hot debates in Parliament and the drawing rooms in London. There were just two opinions in the debates. One side said: just go and win the war. The other side: Give them “independence” and make them allies. Of course, the irony never struck them, or the other blond-blue-eyed-white Christians that those seeking independence were themselves “colonialists” who had committed genocide on the “Red Indians”. And these “colonialists” presumed and presume to be flagship-democrats and model-humanitarian. This has remained so till our times. Teaching us “Christian”

morality par excellence! A decision on the judgeship in Kolkata is being delayed. William Jones realises slowly that there would be no decision on the judgeship in his favour soon. He is already thirty-four. He becomes nervous and apprehensive. Sir Roger Newgate declares in May 1780 that he would not stand as an Oxford candidate for a seat in the House of Commons and would retire. William Jones smelt a chance for a short cut to a career leap. His former pupil, Lord Althorp is already a candidate from Northhampton, a vote bank for the Whigs, and he is only twenty-three. Why should he not try for a candidature for Oxford? Oxford had

always returned a Tory, he knows. Because of his proximity to the Spencers, he is considered to be a Whig. Tories are “conservative” and Whigs are “liberals”. But the political difference between them is marginal. Tories are more fundamental “Royalists” and clung to the current distributional key of privilege. The Whigs are also fundamental “Royalists” trying to change the current distributional key more to their favour. The vehicle of this change is to win people for the struggle for power between the “haves” and the “would-like-to–have-mores”. The basic values of both political groupings are identical. They were just two different networks of connections.

William Jones believes that he was a scholar first and thus would be accepted by the Tories. He outlined his thoughts in detail and sent them to the young Lord Althorp on May 8, 1780: “Proposition 1. It would be a great object to literature and to the nation, if a Whig could be returned for Oxford. Prop. 2. The Tory Party is so strong there, that such an event can hardly happen, unless a candidate arises, who, by the circumstances of his characters, may disunite them. Prop. 3. It is not arrogance to say, what is already proved, that such

circumstances occur in me, from my literary and professional character. Prop. 4. We shall succeed in this contest, if we can disunite the Tories and unite the Whigs. Prop. 5. The instrument of disunion must be my professional and literary support: the instrument of union, must be my avowed zeal for our excellent constitution; and the united efforts of opposition. He outlines also a detailed plan of action referring to opinion-leaders, their mutual relationship and their possible roles in the campaign. Few days later, on May 15, 1780 he forwards his plan also

to Lady Spencer and to Lady Devonshire, a married daughter of the Spencers. It wasn’t corruption, was it? That is the way of life. William Jones makes an effort to get support from all corners. This is to be a service “to literature and to the nation”!And he is as usual not selective with his means. He receives verbal support from many. But only verbal. To cut a long story short, he cannot stand up to the business of politics. Embittered, he withdraws his candidature in the last moment. Deeply frustrated William Jones seriously considers forgetting his “orient” ambitions and immigrating to “America”. Lawyers were scarce in

“America”. So it would be easier there to earn a lot of money as a lawyer. On the other hand there were also signals from high officials raising his hopes for the judgeship in Kolkata. What can he do? What does an expert opportunist do in such a situation? He tries to build up different images. Nothing helps. Ultimately, he decides to leave his country and his love Anna Maria Shipley. He sets on a passage to “America”. His opportunism and low level of scruples does not harm him. No wonder in this culture. On the passage he receives on March 3, 1783 happy news: His appointment as the fourth judge in

Bengal. Before this news reaches him in writing, he had pledged his soul to high office bearers, Patrons and Lordships, several times. LIES ON LONG LEGS tales these shameful activities in details. As already mentioned, the East India Company is one of the largest sources of revenue for the British kingdom. William Jones represents the fourth type of European Christian exploiters in India. They are compulsive talkers. They are adept at justifying everything, making others believe. They don’t make the ruffians, the writers and the clerks superfluous. They just conceal their intrigues, their mischief under the cloak of rational-sounding tales and

ideologies. And they are unconditionally faithful servants of the king and the nobility. They have to depend on ruffians to do the dirty work, for they do not belong to the lower classes. They are ambitious scions of the respected classes – the “yuppies”, so to speak, of their times, “intellectual prostitutes” per excellence. The royalty and the church keep them. After the phase of land grabbing by mere force was over, the time of theruffians comes to an end. They are no longer needed; they could just go or become writers. The writers are more in demand now. The writers are socially an edge above the ruffians. This is the main difference between the two types. Warren Hastings was to be

the last high functionary in India who didn’t hold a school certificate nor having a vocational training, as we shall see in a while. In the fourth phase, the King of England didn’t let any “William Jones” travel to the “colonies” without a title. The top representatives of the Company in Bengal had at least to be a “Sir”. The government and Parliament influence more and more appointments to the top company positions. Holding two offices, one in the “public” parliament and the other on the executive board of the “private” Company, was anything but coincidental. A “Sir” does not belong to the hereditary nobility. In special cases a “Sir” can be elevated to the nobility. He

then sits in the House of Lords. But in general a lord must also possess real estate. But land is limited in England. Therefore, the scope for a “Sir” to become a “Lord” is rare. But it is possible. After William Jones’s appointment as a judge, he is knighted on March 20, 1783. He then marries his long-adored Anna Maria Shipley, a woman approximately his age, on April 8, 1783. He is now thirty-seven. Those are hectic days. Time to bid farewell. Bengal is far away. The frigate “Crocodile” is ready for sail on April 11, 1783. *****

It is a fact that William Jones had all along been a master at talking and writing letters. In the London-society he was very much in. But as a lounge lizard only. The judgeship in Kolkata was his last hope. Who knows what would have happened otherwise. A William Jones would have vanished in oblivion. Anyway, we will just look into facts. It is known that he takes in his baggage the Bible and some belles-lettres on his months-long voyage. It is not known whether he also packs books on India. There were many dependable books on India at that time, though not written by European Christians, but by Hellenic, Roman, Persian and Arabian authors. Sir William claimed to be proficient in these

languages. On the other hand, a “Judge” for the East India Company in Kolkata didn’t require any knowledge about the culture and history of the conquered lands, did he? On the long trip Sir William reverts to “Oriental Jones”. As such, he sold Bengal as a “backyard” of Persia linguistically as well as culturally. But the fact that he announces many a brainchild, his would-be “discoveries”, even before his arrival in Kolkata is mind blowing. Obviously not for modern scholars. Does it throw light on modern scholarship? Sir William knew already that the East India Company owned two printing

facilities, in Kolkata and further inland in Malda. He knew well enough how important writing and marketing of printed pages were. And, he was adept since childhood at telling tales on remote subjects. But he adorned himself only with borrowed plumes— indiscriminately taking any and all plumes that he came easily by. He is clever enough to imagine that from distant Bengal he could tell any story to his people at home. The main thing was that the stories had to be entertaining and sound plausible. On the “Crocodile” he is virtually a “prisoner” for five long months. So he has plenty of time. He designs a mammoth programme as his contribution

to the history of mankind including topics like: “The history of the antiquated world”, “Evidences and illustrations of the Holy Writing” “Traditions referring to the flood” “Modern politics and geography of India” “Literature, rhetoric and morality in Asia”, “Music of the Eastern Nations”, “Gospel by Lukas” in Arabic, the “Psalms of David” in Persian, verses and legal treatises in Persian or Arabic. “Max Müller, M.A.” might have taken lessons from Sir William. Both are cast in the same mould. We know about the qualifications of Sir William. We shall know about the qualifications of “Max

Müller, M.A.” later. The letters written by William Jones prove command over his mother tongue in all its nuances. He has completed Harrow. We concede to him good knowledge of Greek and Latin. His reputation as “Oriental Jones” came basically by his own claims. Yet we concede to him that he was possibly able to read and understand simple Persian and Arabian texts. We haven’t found any single reference that before embarking on the “Crocodile” he has read any of the rich Greek literature on India – beginning with Megasthenes. Nor the slightest hint that “Oriental Jones” studied Greek and Arabic literature on the sciences produced in India, which became known in Europe via Andalusia.

We must raise questions. What was Sir William actually after? Was he after sheer Plagiarisms or re-descriptions of the already well-known Asiatic world? What was he really after? We must also mention those subjects which were left out of this comprehensive programme of the later demigod of European-Christian culture: The colonial robbery, rape and violence, assault, degradation, murdering, plans for sustained exploitation of indigenous people and of course, the role of the willing helpers like the “Sir Williams” in these misdeeds.

***** Sir William lands in Kolkata probably on September 29 or 30, 1783. How does he manage with the language in Kolkata? Well, there are compatriots. And he is supposed to know Persian. In the pecking order of the four judges in the Supreme Court Sir William is the last. But he knows how to command respect within the “honourable colonial society” not only in Kolkata. He shows off his “Oriental Jones”. He claims to know so many remote subjects and can tell so many entertaining stories. We get back to hard facts. Almost immediately after touching Indian soil, as early as on January 15, 1784, he calls

all “honourable colonial servants” to a meeting in Kolkata, 13 persons in all, and set up a “scholarly society” called “Asiatick Society of Bengal”. Who should have been a scholar amongst those 13 colonial servants? If we are patient, “Max Müller M.A.” will enlighten us in due course. It is decided in that meeting to request Governor-general Warren Hastings to accept the chairmanship of this “scholarly society”. Warren Hastings did not even possess a school leaving certificate. He declines. For good reasons. Being the President, he wouldn’t be able to sell “The Asiatick Society of Bengal” as a cultural

achievement of his administration. But he would act as a promoter in the background. So Sir William takes over the office of the Chairman. With great pleasure. Thus he establishes himself easily as the second-most-importantpersonality in the “honourable” colonial Briton clan in Kolkata. The “Asiatick Society of Bengal” becomes the first factory for forging history and for brainwashing. Asians and/or Bengalis do not have entry to this “scholarly Asiatic society”. They were supposed to learn the “history”" and the “histories” of Asia narrated by the new rulers. And the Boss, that “Oriental Jones,” couldn’t even follow any Indian

language. He makes the Christian posterity believe that he needed in Kolkata only English, Arabic and Persian for communications. We all know that the languages spoken then at Kolkata were Bengali and Urdu (MogulPersian). So what? Here is our obligation of an episode. As an ardent admirer of Sir William und as one of his major biographers, Professor Garland Cannon, narrates the following episode on pages 119–120: “There had occurred an embarrassing incident soon after his arrival in Calcutta. He had been sitting beside a Persian scholar when several learned Indians came to pay their respect. He addressed

them in his ‘Persian', which was so incomprehensible that they thought it was English. They whispered to the scholar that Jones should not speak a language which they did not understand; they knew that he was learned in Persian and so he should speak Persian to them. The scholar smiled but it did not mortify Jones. ...After the incident with the Indians, perhaps he smiled to himself when he recalled the promise made in his Persian Grammar: If a person followed the suggested plan of study, in less than a year he would be able to read and answer a letter from any Indian prince ‘and to converse with the natives of India, not only with fluency, but with

elegance. At any rate he set about to correct the deficiency. He began working with Arabic and Persian native speakers. ...Charles Wilkins was pressing him to learn Sanskrit. ...Jones told Wilkins that his duties and studies left him no time for a new language. His work with Hindu poetry, philosophy and art would have to be based on Wilkins’ translations. Indeed, the whole Society was dependent upon Wilkins to unlock the mine of Sanskrit treasures.” Well, Garland Cannon doesn’t find anything embarrassing in this episode. Nothing to be ashamed of. For him it is just an anecdote. Something to smile over!

Sir William comes to know that one Charles Wilkins is conversant with local languages, and who is also in charge of those two printing facilities of the East India Company. He wins him in spite of his much lower rank. Charles Wilkins (1749 (?) -1836) comes to Kolkata as a writer in 1770. Nobody would have noticed Charles Wilkins, like most other writers of the East India Company, had he not discovered rather by chance his latent talent at ‘making it’ in Kolkata. He is there when the East India Company in Bengal was consolidating the grabbed land after the battle of Palashy in 1757. The Company’s governor in Kolkata, that ruffian, Warren Hastings, who had

ascended to “Governor-General”, wants to improve the efficiency of the employees of the Company by teaching them local languages. Nathaniel Brassey Halhed translated in 1776 “A code of Gentoo Laws, or ordinations of the Pandits” from Persian into English. We shall deal with “Pandits” later. The Persian version was supposed to be a translation of a Sanskrit-original. He plunges into the opportunity of compiling a grammar for Bengali. He can make his compatriots believe that if he knew Persian he knew Bengali too. But how was he to get it printed? The London publishing house W. Richardson printed Persian – that is

in Arabian letters –, but didn’t own Bengali letters. Charles Wilkins had been living in Kolkata since 1770 and might have picked up Bengali. Six years is a long time. Charles Wilkins recognises the demand for an English–Bengali printing facility for the Company in Kolkata and discovers his talent at making things with tools. He learns to cast lead into Persian and Bengali characters and types for printing. From whom could he learn? Anyway, we shall watch. Thus, a writer becomes a printer. He prints a grammar for Bengali in Kolkata. Who would otherwise want to know what exactly the case withCharles Wilkins was.

How do we know all this? George Perry meets, shortly after his arrival in Kolkata in 1782, of course accidentally, his schoolmate Francis Gladwin who was busy supervising the printing of Ayeen Ackbery (Laws of the Mogul emperor Akbar), an English translation from Persian. Charles Wilkins was the printer. George Perry is extremely impressed that a writer of the East India Company was able to cast lead first in negatives of Persian and later also of Bengali letters and print Mr. Halhed’s Bengal Grammar. Charles Wilkins did it, when even the ‘ablest artists’ in London were yet unable to cast Bengali letters. George Perry meets him in 1782, gets acquainted and writes in

detail about him to John Nichols, a printer and writer in London, in 1783. In the preface to his Bengali grammar book, Nathaniel Halhed, who happened to be a schoolmate of William Jones, writes: “This book will always bear an intrinsic value from its containing as extraordinary an instance of mechanic abilities as has perhaps ever appeared. In a country so remote from all connection with European artists, Mr. Wilkins was obliged to charge himself with various occupations of metallurgist, engraver, founder and printer.” Charles Wilkins thus rendered a great service to the Company in setting up a ‘printing-office’ in Bengal.

Probably Charles Wilkins learnt the languages in which he printed. He might also have observed the Bengali way of life, and have listened to recitation in a no-more-spoken-language, Sanskrit, at every local ceremony. Probably his curiosity was awakened. But the ‘printing-office’ doesn’t give him much leisure time. He is not permitted to pursue his “hobbies” during his duty hours. Kolkata is uncomfortable for foreigners. He falls ill. He is permitted to travels to Varanasi for a rest cure. In this ancient city there is also a Sanskrit university. There he tries to make himself familiar with the Sanskrit language. So it is said.

As soon as Charles Wilkins returns to Kolkata he finds himself absorbed into the ambitious schemes of Sir William. To find someone in Kolkata like Charles Wilkins was equal to hitting the jackpot for him. And Charles Wilkins becomes to him a willing helper in everything. Through the activities of Sir William he also gets a boost in his career. Charles Wilkins becomes a respected personality in the “honourable colonial society”. Sir William is also a master in positioning. He elevates the self-trained printer to a Sanskrit scholar in 1784, yes already in 1784. Sir William, of course, does know nothing about the Sanskrit

language or about Sanskrit literature. Through this clever trick he positions himself as the second-best Sanskrit scholar. After this “pecking order”, there is no risk. Far and wide, there is no third person who could stake a claim to knowledge of the Sanskrit language. In the country of the blind the one-eyed man was king. Sir William was to declare Charles Wilkins later even to be “the Father of Sanscrit Literature”, a career which was obviously not in sight on October 1, 1783, when George Perry left Kolkata. George Perry, we remember, was full of admiration about the writer Wilkins. Why did he not mention that Charles Wilkins had knowledge of the Sanskrit language too,

if he did? The fact is that Charles Wilkins didn’t have any opportunity to learn Sanskrit before October 1, 1783. We take here the liberty for an aside. The British printer guilds take the posture as if this “self-taught” Charles Wilkins had introduced the printing technique in India. The English Cychlopedeia in 1856, i.e. 20 years after Charles Wilkins’ death, wrote: “In the same manner Mr. Wilkins formed a set of Persian types, which, as well as the Bengalee, continued to be employed for the service of the Company. As his proficiency in the native languages advanced, he became more convinced of the

importance of endeavouring to make himself master of that parent dialect which he found diffused over them all, and which is the depository of the learning and science of India. He continued therefore during the remainder of his residence in that country to follow hitherto untrodden paths of science, and thus has justly obtained the title of the “Father of Sanskrit Literature'". The probability is high that the term ‘parent dialect’ came from Charles Wilkins. Before he died, it was well known that the Sanskrit language was not a dialect. His knowledge in Sanskrit, therefore we assume, was rather

shallow. Anyway, it sounded so well that a “selftaught English writer” of the East India Company, Charles Wilkins, introduced the printing technique in India, isn’t it? Unfortunately, for the Britons it didn’t correspond to facts. The German protestant missionary Benjamin Schultze from Halle had got his grammar book of “Hindusthani” printed in India before Charles Wilkins was born. But Halle is simply not in England. For the modern historians and Indologists is the real history frequently less important than their nice little stories”, sellable wishful stories. *****

But now back to Sir William. Since the Asiatick Society was founded he delivers on its anniversaries programme-based speeches on Asia. Always at the beginning of the year. All non-Asians are summoned to these meetings. These “discourses” are printed in Kolkata and marketed in Europe. At home Warren Hastings is increasingly under attack because of his reckless treatment of the local people and for his alleged indifference towards the culture and history of the new possessions. But he is indeed a guarantee for short-termed high profits for the shareholders of the Company, also a danger for the long-term consolidation of the new possessions.

Sir William and Charles Wilkins with their culture-initiative were therefore welcomed by Warren Hastings. He supports them unconditionally. He writes even a preface to the translation of Charles Wilkins’ “Bhagavat Gita, an episode from the epic Mahabharata”. With Sir William’s blessings? We do not know for certain. Warren Hastings praised Charles Wilkins and his translation fulsomely. It was printed at the expense of the East India Company and then marketed. We shall take up the issue of this translation later in due course. Here only this much. The crux of the matter was that neither Warren Hastings, nor William Jones,

nor any member of the “scholarly society” in Kolkata, nor anybody in London could judge the quality of the translation. Not even whether the published version was a translation from the original “Mahabharata”. The fact is that translations of “Mahabharata” were available in all spoken Indian languages. In Bengali, there were even several abridged versions. There was a Persian translation as well. Charles Wilkins had a choice. Did he translate it himself or did he get it translated by some Bengali “Pandit” (intellectual)? He also had by now “Pandits” on his payroll. How good was the English of those “Pandits” as

Bengali mercenaries? We only ascertain here that many other translations of “Bhagavat Gita” have followed this translation, also in English. Does it mean something? ***** As mentioned, Sir William has positioned himself as a Sanskrit scholar, only second to Charles Wilkins. Presently we take a look at Sir William’s Sanskrit knowledge. Is it better than his Persian? We remember that embarrassing episode when William Jones tried to demonstrate his scholarship in Persian as reported by Garland Cannon. We read a letter written by him to Charles Wilkins, who

had advised him to learn the Sanskrit language. He writes on April 24, 1784: “...but the life is too short and my necessary business too long for me to think at my age of acquiring a new language, when those which I have already learned contain such a mine of curious and agreeable information. All my hopes therefore (as the Persian translations from the Shanscrit are so defective) of being acquainted with the poetry, philosophy, and arts of the Hindūs, are grounded on the expectation of living to see the fruits of your learned labours. ...” It follows logically that he was not familiar with all these. Sir William

depends totally on Charles Wilkins whenever Sanskrit is concerned. At the foundation meeting of the “Asiatick Society of Bengal” Sir William misses somehow a speech before the honourable society of 13 persons. Therefore he submits his “first discourse” in writing even in 1784 – Sir William’s first biographer Sir John Shore, the later Lord Teignmouth, did not mention a date or a month –, got it printed in India and distributed in England: “...it is my design in this essay, to point out such a resemblance between the popular worship of the old Greeks and Italians and that of the Hindus;

nor there can be room to doubt of a great similarity between their strange religions and that of Egypt, China, Persia, Phrygia, Phoenice, Syria; to which, perhaps, we may safely add some of the southern kingdoms and even islands of America; while the Gothick system, which prevailed in the northern regions of Europe, was not merely familiar to those of Greece and Italy, but almost the same in another dress with an embroidery ornamentation of images apparently Asiatic. From all this, if it be satisfactorily proved, we may infer a general union or affinity between the most distinguished inhabitants of the primitive world, at the time, when

they deviated, as they did too early deviate, from the rational adoration of the only true God.” So, that is it: ‘a general union or affinity between the most distinguished inhabitants of the primitive world’ and the ‘rational adoration of the only true God’. This “first discourse” is long. It takes the pages 319-397 in the biography of Sir William by Sir John Shore. These are the last pages of the first of thirteen volumes. Thus the biographer escaped the duty of commenting on the “first discourse”. The later biographers followed Sir John Shore and kept mum. We now know for sure that this knowledge could have “dawned” upon

him only between October 1783 and the spring of 1784 in Kolkata. Also Sir William came to Bengal to earn a quick fortune. We remember: he was living in London on hardly £500. The Judgeship in Kolkata paid him £6000. The later Lord Teignmouth and others praised and marketed this “discourse” successfully under the title: The Gods of Greece, Italy, and India as a proof of the scientific genius of Sir William Jones. Sir William should have known that the Hellenes knew a lot about India and that they passed on this knowledge to posterity. Hellenic sources are full of detailed descriptions of many walks of

life in India. We are impressed by the amount of details which are still preserved. They not only described the way of life in India, but also the way of life and values of the Hellenic culture. We do not find any references about “Indian Gods”. Nor any mention of Hellenic Gods. So we see no comparison between them. Shouldn’t the Hellenic descriptions appear at least to be strange to the posterity of Sir William, even of our times? Obviously they don’t. Is it possible that those Hellenes were not inspired by the “Revelation of Moses” or that they failed to understand Moses because they were not

accustomed to the term “God” as Moses used it? Weren’t the “Greek Gods” accustomed to a loose life in their mutual relations in those with contemporary human beings as well? Since when were Zeus & Co actually called gods? In what sense? Doesn’t the usual translation of the Greek word “theós” (θεóς) and the Roman word “deus” into “God” in the Christian way distort the original meaning? Don’t the so-called Greek gods appear to be very human? Even today? Aren’t they? Which typical human characteristic are alien to them? Were they, actually, just human beings only? Though exceptional indeed, nevertheless human?

The Hellenes have reported on all matters, which were new to them. Meticulously. We are surprised not to find anything about “Jainic teaching”, about Jainic temples, about “Buddhist teaching”, about “stupas” (memorials) and “Bihars” (monastery), about “Hinduism”, about temple architecture and their different regional characteristics, about Indian “Gods”, about “Priests”. What does it indicate? Were these issues unimportant? Or did these phenomena arrive in India later? We have not found any answers. We haven’t found the questions either. Why was Sir William not at least curious about the writings of the Hellenes about

India before he wrote his “first discourse” in 1784? On the subject: “The Gods of Greece, Italy, and India”? Or do we demand too much from an obsessed dazzler? We leave aside these questions to Sir William. However, we should not neglect to indicate that the idea of translating the gospel for ‘the well-educated natives’ was almost certainly “pinched” by SirWilliam. We remember that a Jesuit padre, a scion of roman high nobility, did not just conceive this idea around 1607 in Madurai in the south of India. That ‘Samnyâsin from Rome’ – no, that ‘Brahmin Samnyâsin from Rome' implemented the idea in practice as well. The Jesuit father Joseph Bertrand

published (1780-1783) books in Paris on the mission of Roberto de Nobili. Well before Sir William’s departure to India. We have narrated the story about Roberto de Nobili in a nutshell. We remember, he laid all the mischief, even selling himself as a remote cousin of the Brahmins from Rome with full papal approval. This Roman branch of the Brahmins was supposed to have further developed the Vedas: The Gospels. The question foremost in our mind is: what would this Christian “ruffian”, Roberto de Nobili, have started had he found even the remotest similarity between the Roman and Indian Gods?

Did he and his Roman fellow “ruffians” wear professional blinkers? Didn’t he see any other possibility of winning the soul of ‘the well-educated natives’ than with the aid of a forged text? Or was Roberto de Nobili as blind as the Hellenes who failed to recognise their Gods in India as well? Filippo Sassetti also did not recognise any roman gods in India. Was it because he just happened to be a Florentine? Or was it because he did not have the shrewdness of a Sir William? What happened to these sick fantasies of William Jones? The main message is still going strong: God, the God of Sir Willam alone is rational, is true. All

former ones were primitive. The message of this God is consequently: ‘Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...’ This is the Christian duty. Convert the primitives. If they resist being converted, then they don’t deserve anything good on earth. And the booty? Just a collateral profit in today’s vocabulary! Is this message today more alive than ever in this culture? Howsoever! With his “first discourse” Sir William wiped out all knowledge of

former times. “A cultural genocide”. The world was to be re-described. And he knew the mighty power of printed words, of the might-media-manipulation complex. LIES WITH LONG LEGS narrates more details. We do not critise Sir William. We are criticising the “historians”, “Indologists” and “social scientists” who are still marketing the sick fantasies of the many “Sir William Jones” as scientific findings. They revere William Jones as a god. The god of “linguistics” and “Indology”. As a demigod of science. *****

Sir William’s way of acquiring knowledge about “Indian culture” is also documented in his letter of June 22, 1784 to Charles Wilkins (Highlighted by us): “...First I expect from you an Hindu Pantheon, and next a complete tract on Hindŭ musick: no human has better materials than yourself for those works; none have made more original observations on the subject; few have more discernment or taste. I am the more anxious to see them from your hand, because (after our conversations at Russapuglah) I know your ability, and because my late acquaintance with the Siry Bhāgwat

and the Meizāni Mūziky, the subjects are peculiarly interesting to me. I am in love with the Gopia, charmed with Crishen, an enthusiastic admirer of Rām, and a devout adorer of Brimhabishen-mehais: not to mention, that Judishteir, Arjen, Cotno and the other warriors of the M'hab'harat appear greater in my eyes than Agamemnon, Ajax and Achilles appeared, when I first read the Iliad. ...” In this context, another letter to Charles Wilkins of March 1, 1785 is noteworthy (Highlighted by us): “Dear Sir, I have just received from

Benares a S’hanscrit book, which puzzled me at first and will, I hope, continue to puzzle, till it enlightens, me. On the back of the case it is called (something scrawled in Arabic letters), but, in the inside (something scrawled in Devnagri letters), which I suppose, is the Dherm Shāstr Menu Smrety. A version of this curious work is promised, and, when it comes, I will set about learning the original, if I can procure assistance from a good Pendit (how could he judge which “Pandit” was good? The same procedure as “Mirza”?). The 4 shlōcs I mentioned are in the Ninth section, which is the last but one of the Second chapter of the Bhāgwat. You

would much oblige me, if you could have those 4 shlōcs copied (Who is supposed to copy them? Why could Charles Wilkins not copy them?), as I wish to have them engraved, and I will desire Cāshynāt'h (he is Kashinath, the “Pandit” of Charles Wilkins) at some leisure hour, to read them: they contain (How could he have known this?) the purest theology and, I think, sound philosophy. The powerful Surye (the sun), whom I worship only that he may do me no harm, confines me to my house, as long as he appears in the heavens: you will therefore always find me at dinner, and the oftener you favour with your company, the more pleasure

you will give to, my dear Sir, your very faithful servant W. Jones.” Sir William picked up a few words in his “Shanscrit” and let his fantasies roam until some sellable tale occurred to him. He started to entertain his “colonial” public in India and at home with his exotic tales. Here is another example of his “scholarly” method. Not that today’s “scholars” no longer practise this method; it just does not get exposed. We owe this insight to the favourable circumstance that telephone was not in use those days. Even for short distances letters had to be written. Sir William wrote another letter on March 1, 1785 to Charles Wilkins

(Highlighted by us): “My dear Sir, Goverdhen Caul Pendit has just brought a certificate of his qualifications, to which I see the respectable signature of Cāshynāt'h, your Pendit: if I give my voice in favour of Goverdhen (it was his first name!), it will be owing to the testimonials of the good man, who brought me three daisies at Benares, and of whose learning, since you employ him, I can have no doubt. We have proposed that the candidate shall be examined by some learned Pendits. Will Cāshynāt'h be one of the number, and give his opinion fairly without being biased by his

good-nature? I shall be much obliged to you, if you will sound him and discover his real opinion of the man. It is of the utmost importance, that the stream of Hindu law should be pure; for we are entirely at the devotion of the native lawyers, through our ignorance of Shanscrit. I am going to the gardens till Monday; and earnestly hope, that, while you stay in India, you will give as much of your company, as you can spare, to, my dear Sir, your faithful and obedient servant W. Jones.” To none else than Charles Wilkins did

Sir William ever confess that he had no knowledge whatsoever of his Shanscrit nor of any other Indian language. The pecking order of the East India Company ensured that Charles Wilkins was as good as a father–confessor. Sir William saw his last opportunity to a great career favoured by three lucky facts in Kolkata: the Shanscrit language, two printing facilities of the East India Company andCharles Wilkins. And he makes use of them. Charles Wilkins knows India better than any other servant of the East India Company. He runs the two printing-centres. And Sir Williams didn’t just possess a good nose for opportunities; he was also an expert bluffer and swindler. He very soon

realised that “Sanskrit” was a sheer inexhaustible treasure chest, which had not been opened and exploited yet. On February 2, 1786 Sir William succeeds in making a smart big strike. As the president of the "Asiatick Society", a scholarly society without scholars, he presents his “third discourse” on its third anniversary. Not so much addressing the meeting as aiming at the discourse’s publication in England and in Europe. He knows about the ignorance of the intellectuals there. He knows that he could sell any story from this far off land if he only succeeds in making the stories plausible and entertaining enough.

It is too bad that we will never know about the expressions on the faces of the colonial public listening to this “discourse” of Sir William. Today even his diction is glorified. Who will not be willing to believe that he genuinely mastered almost all-important languages of the world? Bluff and swindle to perfection! Or, perhaps, not that perfect? Thomas R. Trautmann makes us feel a little unsure. In his book Aryans and British India,University of California Press, in 1997, he only quotes one paragraph which he characterises as ‘a landmark on the passage from prescientific to the scientific'. Thomas R. Trautmann is professor of

history and of anthropology at the University of Michigan, USA. We will also quote that paragraph but will begin a little earlier than Thomas R. Trautmann: “...that the pure Hindi, whether of Tartarian or Chaldean origin, was primeval in Upper India, into which the Sanscrit was introduced by conquerors from other kingdoms in some very remote age; for we can not doubt that the language of the Vèda’s was used in the great extent of country, which was before been delineated, as long as the religion of Brahmā prevailed in it.

The Sanscrit 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, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the

Gothick and Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and one the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia.” Why does Thomas R. Trautmann quote the paragraph (in bold) only and holds back such a pioneering discovery in the preceding paragraph that: ‘the Sanscrit was introduced by conquerors from other kingdoms in some very remote age’? Does he deliberately try not to make a fool of the “God of linguistics and Indology” or has he followed the

general convenient practice and just copied it from another book without looking into the primary source of publication? Whatever might have been the case, Thomas R. Trautmann adds subtly an elegant remark to this Quote (p.38): “The modernity of the formulation is remarkable. The grouping of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic (Germanic) Celtic, and Old Persian through mutual resemblance, the resort both to the lexicon and grammar as bases of comparison, the conception of these languages as co descendants of a lost ancestral language, which we call Proto-Indo-European – these are

exactly the views historical linguists holds today.” While Sir William delivers this “third discourse” on February 2, 1786 he was unable to read Sanskrit texts or in any Indian language. And how is it with his devotee Thomas R. Trautmann? Does he, a professor of history and of anthropology at the University of Michigan, USA, have the competence to write a sentence like: “The grouping of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic (Germanic) Celtic, and Old Persian through mutual resemblance, the resort both to the lexicon and grammar as bases of comparison, the conception of these languages as co descendants of a

lost ancestral language, which we call Proto-Indo-European – these are exactly the views historical linguists holds today.”? Can he read these languages? He cannot. It is not worth to deal with Thomas R. Trautmann in details here. We refer again to LIES WITH LONG LEGS. At this point, we take a deep breath and ask why the old Hellenes failed to see that their own language was so similar to the Sanskrit language that the two languages possibly stemmed from a common origin? Didn’t they speak “Greek” eventually? What did Megasthenes do for eleven long years in India? Not even once did he report

about the “world of Gods” which was supposed to be so similar with the Hellenes. No, he also did not report anything about religions, anything about the “kinship of languages”. Was he deaf and dumb? Not only he, all Hellenes in India? We can understand William Jones - his sickening ambitions, his fantasy verging on madness, his failures in life, his having a very high opinion of himself, his distinctly weak “Ego”, his Christian missionary zeal. However, we don’t find, even at our tolerant best, an excuse for the “Trautmanns” telling us false stories, deliberately or ignorantly. They should have known better, they must

have known better. Otherwise, they would not have deserved their salaries. Or, are the “Trautmanns” hired to telling us false stories? Are they just “intellectual prostitutes”? Here also we do not take a break, but add a little to the term “intellectual prostitutes”. For whatever reasons the term “prostitute” is associated in our days only to sex on hire. There is a minority of people, who sell their body, voluntarily or under economic compulsion, for maintenance. In our prevailing universal culture, this minority is socially loathed, also thanks to the “intellectual” class. Why did it happen? We raise here only the issue,

that the inherent original meaning of the term has been reduced to “selling body to earn money”. In Latin original there is no association to sex-activities. The term literally means: to put up for sell frontally. We all do it if we don’t possess capital goods, if we are not owner of means of production. We are the vast majority. What do we sell? Do we do it for survival only? Do we do it to accumulate as much money as possible? Do we do it indiscriminately? Are we conscious of a category scruples? We let presently “intellectual prostitutes” be without going further deep into it and let William Jones, the

“God of linguistics and Indology”, be as it is. William Jones does not bring the language named Sanskrit to Europe. His greed for money will keep him in Kolkata. He expires on April 1794. He was deserted in Kolkata by the “first and only Shanscrit scholar”, later “the Father of Sanscrit Literature”. Charles Wilkins fell seriously ill in late 1786. He sailed back home at the age of 37. We should not close the sub-chapter William Jones before raising a few questions. What hindered Sir William, the Sir Williams and their scholarly heirs until today from asking a few obvious questions? Did they possess a measuring rod in order to judge the

qualification and the scholarship of persons belonging to foreign cultures? Who were those “scholars” with whom they came into contact and whom did they never meet? How did it come to this selection? What were the interacting interests? What were they really doing in foreign lands? What were the justifications? Who became a collaborator? What hindered them to ask these or similar simple questions? Their primitiveness, selfishness, selfcomplacency, autocracy, or what? The metaphor “in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king” doesn’t fit here. It is more like a blind guide for a blind! The type of a fix in which

“Oriental Jones” found himself in Kolkata is best described in his letter to Warren Hastings on October 23, 1786: “...since Mr. Wilkins determined on returning to Europe, I found myself without a guide in Sanskrit literature, and have therefore been under a necessity of learning Sanskrit myself. Since it will be my last language, I am learning it more grammatically and accurately than the indolence of childhood and the impatience of youth allowed me (interesting confession!) to learn any other.” ***** Charles Wilkins, the former “writer” of the East India Company, had to stop

learning the Sanskrit language, if he really ever did, after his departure from Kolkata. He did not have a “Pandit” anymore. But he brings at least his knowledge of the Sanskrit language to England in 1786. We shall have to estimate the quality of his Sanskrit. Charles Wilkins had begun to compile a dictionary on Sir William’s request in 1785 with the aid of “Pandits”. The method of this compiling was quite problematic. Charles Wilkins knew Sanskrit letters. But was he able to pronounce the words correctly? Even if we concede for a while that he knew also pronunciations he definitely couldn’t understand the meaning of the

words without the help of the “Pandits”. Who were those “Pandits”? We only know that they were employed as private interpreters cum teachers of the Sanskrit language to people who knew nothing but English. Did these teachers know English? Were they good at teaching? Were they bad? How can it be judged? We may accept that Charles Wilkins could communicate with the Bengalis in Kolkata. We may even accept his ability to judge recommendations. And he had the power to hire and fire. But how could he judge whether the “Pandits” really knew the Sanskrit language? Then the procedure and the concrete

process of communication in this peculiar situation come in. Assuming that the “Pandits” knew the Sanskrit language and they had acquired a workable knowledge of English. They would translate the Sanskrit texts into a language foreign to them and then transmit (pass on) the translated text, to the pupil and await for a sign that the text had been received and understood. How was the teacher to be sure, verify, that the receiver had really understood the real meaning? It is understood that any such verification would have been as inaccurate as the initial transmission itself. Then there is another insurmountable problem. Assuming that the difficulties

in communication arising from the languages are under kontroll, what about the grasping capacity of the intellect, the brain at the receiving end – the decisive factor in any learning process? We know, to quite an extent, the limits of Charles Wilkins’ brainpower, especially that his knowledge of the Sanskrit language was meagre at best. What would we understand if outstanding physicists tried to explain the fundamentals of quantum mechanics to us, physics ignorant? It would just be incomprehensible to us. Charles Wilkins was asked by Sir William to start compiling a SanskritEnglish dictionary, as just mentioned. He

began immediately the job with the help of his “Pandit”. This beginning itself is an important indication for the linguistic ignorance of the man later to be called the “Father of Sanscrit Literature”, Charles Wilkins and his “Pandit”. Those hired “Pandits”, this is the usual malice of “intellectual prostitution”, supplied only that for which a payment followed. Charles Wilkins or Sir William didn’t know that in ancient times there had never been a Sanskrit dictionary. Instead there were comprehensive grammar (rules of differentiate understandings) books. The main syllables in Sanskrit have basic meanings. In translation, they

can be called “roots”. The meaning of these syllables changes according to the formation of words. Words are formed around these and other syllables. Without profound knowledge of the meaning of the individual syllables, their positions and their diverse combinations, strictly according to rules, the words cannot be understood. Then the meaning of the words reveals itself only in the context of the sentence, the meaning of the sentence in the context of the paragraph and the sense of the paragraph in connection with the treatise as a whole. We shall deal later with the language called Sanskrit in a separate Chapter.

Here is only the pointer that it does not make any sense to learn the alphabets and words and try translating words and sentences with the help of uncalled for dictionaries. But a Charles Wilkins or a Sir William were in a hurry to sell exotic products and were satisfied with whatever was delivered by their “Pandits” in broken English as long as they could be made into a sellable story for their European Christian consorts at home. These deliveries by their “Pandits” in broken English were noted down according to the “procedure Mirza”. These were thus marketed by the “blind for the blind”. The quality is accordingly and as to be expected.

Charles Wilkins and his “Pandits” were, of course, not able to compile a dictionary even for Sir William’s needs. On his departure, he promised Sir William to continue with the job at home. Sir William needed urgently something like a dictionary. Impatiently he reminded Charles Wilkins on October 6, 1787: “Give me leave, my dear Sir, to congratulate you on your marriage, and to inquire concerning your health and your literary labours. Your Gítà (‘Bhagawat Geeta’ from ‘Mahabharata’ is meant) has given me delight, and the Episode of the Amrita I got by heart: but they only make me long for the rest of the Mahābhārat, and for your dictionary.”

Charles Wilkins never supplied the dictionary. He ended his career in India at a relatively young age because of illness. This might have given him a long life. We know nothing of a social security system of the East India Company for such subordinate employees like a Charles Wilkins. What could he do in England at the age of thirty-seven? He performed the craft of a printer, he probably remembered many things told by his “Pandits” and started at best reviewing his personal collection of old Sanskrit books along with their Bengali translations. Eventually he started also compiling a SanskritEnglish-Dictionary. We do not know. The promised dictionary was possibly

not a priority for him. Naturally. So he made an effort to live on translating “Indian” literature. We register another signal on the real quality of Charles Wilkins’ Sanskrit knowledge. As mentioned already, the later Lord Teignmouth wrote in 1804 in thirteen volumes The life of Sir William Jones. As John Shore, he had served the Company as a collector of revenue, as Sir John Shore in the Council in Kolkata, later as governor-general. He knew Charles Wilkins and revered Charles Wilkins duly: “...the art of printing had been introduced into Bengal by the untaught skill of Mr. Wilkins, and had advanced to great

perfection, and that many publications equally useful, and interesting had issued from the press which he had established.” He did not say a single word about Charles Wilkins’ encounter with the Sanskrit language. Charles Wilkins, in fact, published a year after his return in 1787 a translation of a collection of fairy tales Hitopadesa of Vishnu Sarma, although there was an English version of the same in the market. We may recall Hitopadesa, Friedrich Maximilian Müller, Leipzig and all that goes with it. In our context, we ascertain one major aspect that Charles Wilkins never taught anybody the Sanskrit language in Europe. He

never claimed to be a scholar. He just accepted the accorded honours. We came across Sanskrit in all walks of our search. No one knows exactly when this language was spoken. This is not important either. It is important that it had not been spoken for centuries. Therefore, we look deeper and precisely into what could have been behind this interest in Sanskrit for “colonial” servants in India. It catches our attention that only the recent Sanskrit scholars’ are regarded to be genuine Sanskrit scholars. And the celebrated among them are not of Indian origin. What happened? How did it happen? In

the

phase

of

consolidating

“conquered” foreign lands, the highpositioned occupants hired eagerly their private "Pandits”. And each of them thought that his “Pandit” was far better than those of the others, of course. And it was in mutual interest to agree upon a pecking order abroad. Many adventurers and soldiers of fortune of course, followed Sir William. They participated as justifiers in the big business of exploiting India, as producersof ideologies. The German “scholars” captured their share in this big business of exploiting Indian people, contributing “Indology”, the science on “the wonder that was India”. Doesn’t it sound as well as “Asiatick Society of Bengal”? Doesn’t it?

***** We are through with William Jones and Charles Wilkins. The next was Alexander Hamilton. We have dealt with him already. We remember him. He was the first European who brought the Sanskrit language to European soil and taught his Sanskrit language in Paris in 1803, exclusively to Friedrich von Schlegel. Whatever Sanskrit that might have been. His only pupil, Friedrich von Schlegel did not teach his Sanskrit language to anybody in Europe. William Carey (1761–1834) appears on this scenario next. He is the oldest of five children, born to Edmund and

Elizabeth Carey, who were weavers in the village of Paulerspury in Northamptonshire. At the age of 14, William Carey’s father apprenticed him to a cobbler in the nearby village of Piddington. When his master Nichols died in 1779, he went to work for the local shoemaker Thomas Old. He gets involved with a recently formed local association of “Particular Baptists”. In 1783, he is baptized. In 1789, he becomes a full-time pastor of a small Baptist church in Leicester. This English shoemaker does not stick to his last, only to become one of the founders of the Baptist Missionary Society, then to be sent to Bengal in 1793 as a Baptist missionary when he is 32 years old.

He is said to have compiled grammar books in Bengali, Marathi and Sanskrit. How does he do it? Whatsoever. We let it be, as his “Sanskrit-grammar” was printed in Kolkata in 1804. A first printed grammar for Sanskrit that could have travelled to Europe. For certain, he does not teach his Sanskrit, not to talk of teaching Sanskrit in Europe. No one has, not yet, declared him to be a Sanskrit scholar. The colonial “writer” Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837) also brings out a grammar for Sanskrit in 1805, printed in Bengal. He is then 40 years old. We turn to the vita of Thomas Henry Colebrooke. He is born in

London on the 15th June 1765. His father, George Colebrooke, is a member of the House of Commons in London and a spokesperson of the East India Company there. In 1767, he becomes a Director in the Company and in 1769 its Chairman. Nothing is handed down about his mother. Henry Thomas as a child is not fit for a school. From the age of twelve to sixteen he is brought up in France. He does never learn in a school. Nowhere. He learns at home only. George Colebrooke lets his son to be recruited as a writer of the East India Company without giving him any formal education and training and asks his friend Warren

Hastings in Kolkata to make something out of him. He is seventeen now. He arrives in inhospitable Kolkata before he has not completed his 18, in April 1783, only to find himself jobless. Warren Hastings is busy, so it is said, with his own troubles. He faces public criticisms in England for the way he runs the “colonial” administration. Thus, Henry Thomas Colebrooke remains unemployed in Kolkata for nearly ten months, and then gets a subordinate position in the Board of Accounts on a meagre salary. At last in 1786, he manages to become the “Assistant Collector of Revenue” at Trihut, a small remote location. Now he is 21.

We recall that Sir William was putting pressure on his compatriots to write field reports to fill the pages of Asiatick Researches. Yet Henry Thomas Colebrooke writes his first report in 1794, “Remarks on the Present State of Husbandry and Commerce in Bengal”. Eleven years after he had landed in Kolkata. He is now 29. He didn’t have opportunity to learn anything else in these years. Otherwise, he would have conceded to the pressures of SirWilliam and made some sort of reports to be published in Asiatick Researches. His father also pressed him to provide information regarding the religion and the literature of the Hindus, so it is said.

To cut a long tell short we read in the book “The Asiatic Society of Bengal and the Discovery of India’s Past 1784–1838” by O. P. Kejariwal, Delhi, Oxford University Press Bombay Kolkata Madras, 1988 (p. 77-78): “In retrospect, one can say that he (Henry Thomas Colebrooke) attended to his father’s demands more from filial duty than because of his admiration of Indian literature which in fact ‘repelled him’. He described the ‘Ain-i-Akbari’ (Laws given by the Mogul emperor Akbar), which had been translated by Gladwin as ‘a dunghill, in which a pearl or two lie hid’. He was also severely critical of

the literary scene in India and thought the small band of scholars who acquired a knowledge of Indian letters to be ‘nothing less than pedantic pretenders’, whose only motive was to gain fame without much deserving it; and this they accomplished by doing a free translation of ‘an ode from Persian, an apologue from the Sanskrit, or a song from some unheard-of dialect the Hinduee...(even) without understanding the original’. The only exception, according to Colebrooke, was Charles Wilkins who was ‘Sanskrit-mad’, and about whose translation of the ‘Bhagavad-Gita’, he wrote, ‘I have never yet seen any

book which can be depended on for information concerning the real opinions of the Hindus’”. O. P. Kejariwal (1944) is a modern Indian historian. He belongs to the generation of Indian historians who are “educated” in “universities” in India. He adores William Jones and his Asiatick Society, British-Indian culture and all that goes with it. Om Prakash Kejariwal makes a career, admired by European Christians and permitted to manage minds in India being the Director General of All India Radio and through quite a few of Central Indian Government Publications. Om Prakash Kejariwal does

not

disclose his sources. Assuming once that his sources were reliable, we would like to know from him and from the whole lot of ardent admirers of Henry Thomas Colebrooke when, where, from whom and for how long Colebrooke could have learnt all these subjects. We checked his vita. He has no formal education. He is rather poor in India. He cannot afford “Pandits”. He has no communications with more resourceful servants of the East India Company in Kolkata. How could he know about all these matters? These questions have not been raised yet. And, no questions, no answers. Yet, his intellectual capacity is revealed, if we trust Om Prakash Kejariwal in the lines:

“The only exception, according to Colebrooke, was Charles Wilkins who was ‘Sanskrit-mad’, and about whose translation of the ‘Bhagavad-Gita’, he wrote, ‘I have never yet seen any book which can be depended on for information concerning the real opinions of the Hindus”. We recall, Charles Wilkins left Kolkata in 1785. We know this little game well. Denigrate others. Impute to others the same bad intentions you practise too. Try to focus on alleged machinations of others. Perhaps you won’t be caught. So, ignite as many smoke bombs as you can. The question whether the actors play this little game deliberately or social reality

writes the rules of this game leads to a cul-de-sac. William Jones exalted the printerCharles Wilkins in high terms. He himself was raised to be “God of Indology” in his lifetime. Beyond all criticism. In every respect. Why not also Henry Thomas Colebrooke? We quote from the Dictionary of Indian Biography: “His literary and scientific labours were immense. A great mathematician, a zealous astronomer and profound Sanskrit scholar, his writings always commanded the highest attention: he has been described as facile princeps among Sanskrit scholars. He wrote also on the Vedas, on Sanskrit grammar and a

lexicon, on the Sect of Jains, on Indian Jurisprudence and Roman law, besides other papers on Hindu law, philosophy and customs, Indian algebra, on astronomy, the height of the Himalayas, botany, geology, comparative philology, etc., in contributions to the Transactions of the learned Societies – the Astronomical, the Linnaean, the Geological and Asiatic – to which he belonged, as well as to the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh: he was a member of several foreign Academies also. He gave, in 1818, his valuable collection of Sanskrit MSS. to the E. I. Co.’s library.”

Any questions? At least Thomas Henry Colebrooke has handed down “An Essay on the Vedas (1805)”, for a long time the standard work in English on the subject. So it is stated in the annals. Now, we know enough about Thomas Henry Colebrooke. We do not intend to review that essay by him. For us it is important to ascertain that he has not claimed to have taught his Sanskrit language anywhere to anybody. In fact, he does not teach anybody his Sanskrit language. We have noticed that Thomas Henry Colebrooke laid particular emphasis on Charles Wilkins, but not on Sir William Jones. Yet it is worth mentioning that

Om Prakash Kejariwal, we are unable to ascertain whose clone he is, will be nationally and internationally honoured. Also with: Nehru Fellowship (1990), British Council (1990), Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain (1992) and last not least a special invitee to a symposium on 'Sir William Jones' organised by the New York University (1994) thanks to Garland Cannon. We know him. Arthur Llewellyn Basham honours Om Prakash Kejariwal’s book with a preface. We know already, Arthur Llewellyn Basham is that British “historian” who made Alexander Hamilton a great scholar just by chance

when he copied from some other book without any scruples. And we remember that he was also ‘Guru and friend’ of the known “historian and anthropologist” Thomas R. Trautmann at the Michigan university, who in 1997 earned renown with his book Aryans and British India also in India. A remarkable virtual world created in the culture, which gave birth of “The wonder that was India” as late as in 1954 and “intellectual prostitutes” like Om Prakash Kejariwal! “Bashams”, “Trautmanns” and “Kejariwals” do not remain barren. There are many of them. We refer to one who is in this business well demanded

also these days, visiting India often on invitations by “intellectual prostitutes” like Om Prakash Kejariwal, singing the song of song’s on the glorious British Rule in India, on “Orientalist Jones”, on “Asiatic society in Kolkata” and what not. We read in his home page: “Michael Franklin was a medievalist in a former life by the muddy banks of the Ouse, but he now lingers by the perfumed Yamuna.” We have just quoted him. He teaches at Swansee University, Wales, UK. ***** Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860) is

the next in this gallery. His vita is remarkable as well. Born on September 26, 1786, he attends the Soho Square School in London, takes up in 1804 studies in medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital, and is recruited by the East India Company as an “assistant surgeon” for Kolkata in 1808. He lands in Kolkata in the same year at the age of 22, but works as a metal tester in the mint thanks to his knowledge of chemistry as a medical man. It is all the more remarkable that he serves in Kolkata under a Doctor of Medicine as an assistant. Not in a hospital, but in the Kolkata Mint. He assists Dr. John Leyden, born in 1775

in Denholm, Roxburghshire. John Leyden had made a brilliant career at Edinburgh University, so it is said. In the Dictionary of Indian Biography 1906 we read about him: “... licensed as a preacher, 1798: studied medicine, and became M.D. at St. Andrew's: Went to Madras in 1803: Assistant Surgeon: surveyed in, and reported on, Mysore: travelled to Penang: to Calcutta in 1806: wrote on Oriental languages, became Professor of Hindustani at the College of Fort William, and Judge of the 24 Parganas, near Calcutta, and in 1809 Commissioner of the court of requests in Calcutta: Assay Master of

the Mint, 1810: to Java in 1811 with Lord Minto, as Malay interpreter: died of fever at Cornelis, on August 28, 1811.” This 37 years old Dr. John Leyden claimed to have known thirty one languages. Dr. John Leyden and Horace Hayman Wilson were loyal servants of the East India Company. Even though they had taken the oath (to serve the sick), and despite the fact that their compatriots in Kolkata were in dire need of medical service, they were asked to produce coins in the Mint and they agreed without protest. The foundation of an “Empire” did have its price for individuals. And quite a few

individual rewarded.

contributors

were

richly

Horace Hayman Wilson’s career is less bizarre than that of John Leyden. He succeeds the latter in 1811 as the “Chief metal tester” in the mint. Also in 1811, he is chosen as secretary to the “Asiatick Society of Bengal” and takes the responsibility of publishing the Asiatick Researches. This triple load doesn’t keep him away from Sanskrit. Later he will be ranked in the “gallery of ancestors” as a great Sanskrit scholar after Sir William and Henry Thomas Colebrooke. “The first Sanskrit scholar”, the “Father of the Sanskrit Literature”. Charles Wilkins is by then

forgotten. Horace Hayman Wilson serves faithfully in India till he returns in 1832. ***** We apologise here taking an aside. The occupants were confronted in India with two special features. One: An abundance of literature on high metaphysical and scientific level written in the Sanskrit language, in a no longer spoken language. Then: a highly respected social group that didn’t hold riches and possessions. The Brahmins. The instrument of proselytising to tie up local people didn’t seem practicable toward this group. We have dealt with this aspect in some detail in connection with

the letters written by Filippo Sassetti, telling the stories about Roberto de Nobili, as well with the activities of Heinrich Roth. Then the business of conversion is expensive. The British occupants could also learn from the experience of the Portuguese and weighed up the convenience of converting against that of winning over by hiring and training. Equipped with these experiences the new rulers chose to offer training as an instrument to win over and gain control over the local population. In the last quarter of the 18th century they also receive support from some traditionally privileged Indians and of quite a

reasonable number of missionaries in establishing “educational” institutions. The many “Pandits”, we remember, and Indians like them are interested in getting English education for their children and therefore put pressure on the Britons. Also, the missionaries pressurised in favour of expansion of the “educational” institutions. Understandably. Missionaries become teachers. They too had to prove their usefulness in the “colony”. We remember, Henry Thomas Colebrooke arrived at Kolkata in April 1783 and William Jones in September 1783. Many non-Muslim “scholars” just became mercenaries. The era of the

“Pandits” was on. Indians like Raja (Prince) Ram Mohan Roy (1772 – 1833) takes private lessons of the English language in order to outdo the Muslim rulers. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was to be the first Indian to travel to England. Dwarkanath Ţhakur (Tagore) (1794 – 1846) for example made a fortune as one of the first Indian entrepreneurs, dies in London. These Indian entrepreneurs were just servicing the British colonisers in sustained exploitation of Indian people. “Intellectual prostitutes” sell this development, a practical necessity in the process of occupation and of sustained exploitation, as a humanitarian action.

The ruffians learnt by experience that knowledge of culture and mentality of the conquered people facilitated exploitation. “Oriental departments” are established at the colleges in Haileybury and Addiscombe. In addition, the “East India College” is founded in Hertford in 1805. “Sanskrit” is declared to be an important subject. Remarkably enough, neither Charles Wilkins nor Alexander Hamilton ever teaches the Sanskrit language in those Colleges. Henry Thomas Colebrooke after his return also does not care to teach his Sanskrit anybody anywhere. Does this fact indicate something? What does it indicate? Were they too great Sanskrit scholars to teach in Colleges?

We withdraw our last question. Charles Wilkins could not fulfil Sir William’s ardent desire for a SanskritEnglish-Dictionary, as we know. Twenty-five years after the death of Sir William the first Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary will be brought out by Horace Hayman Wilson in 1819 and thereby standardising the meaning and understanding of all Sanskrit words thereafter. Of course, with financial blessings of the East India Company and with the aid of those “Indian Pandits” who were no more than mercenaries. This standardisation is the beginning to expropriate the Indians of their heredity in literature, science and culture

systematically. Our Friedrich Maximilian Müller will be born four years later, in 1823. By this Sanskrit-English dictionary Horace Hayman Wilson becomes automatically one of the “most eminent” Sanskrit scholars. But how good was his knowledge of Sanskrit really? And who were those “Indian Pandits”? In which language did they make themselves understood? Did they make themselves understood? Questions like these have not been raised yet. So 1819 becomes a breaking point regarding the remarkable journey of the language named Sanskrit. We already know that this Sanskrit had already

arrived in Europe in a more rudimentary quality. We remind only the names which mark the quality: Warren Hastings, Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, Charles Wilkins, William Jones, William Carey, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, H. P. Forster, Horace Hayman Wilson on the one hand and Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich von Schlegel, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz Bopp on the other hand. ***** With this scenario at the back of our mind, we turn to Horace Hayman Wilson once again and apologise for

looking ahead a little more. In 1832, he is chosen as the first Boden-Professor for Sanskrit in Oxford. One Joseph Boden, year of birth unknown, began to serve in the “Bombay Native Army” in 1781. In 1806, he becomes a Lieutenant colonel as a loyal servant of the East India Company in British India. In 1807, he retires. He dies on November 21, 1811 but leaves behind a huge inheritance for his unmarried daughter with the condition that his property was to be donated for the foundation of a Professorship for Sanskrit at Oxford University after his daughter’s death. This happens in 1827. We take a special note on the quality of Oxford University and of its moral standard as well.

We do not know how a lieutenant colonel of the “Bombay Native Army” accumulated such a fortune being just a loyal servant of the British Kingdom represented by the East India Company. We also do not know enough about the relationship between this “colonial slaughter man” and the like and Oxford University and the like. We feel, it is high time to investigate into the relationship between the East India Company and Oxford University in particular and the Era of Vasco da Gama and “elite universities” in general. In 1827 £ 25000 were donated to Oxford University, which we know. The objective of the donation was

determined in the will by Joseph Boden, this we know as well. The BodenProfessorship at Oxford University was to promote the translation of the Bible into Sanskrit, which would prove the superiority of the Gospel to the “modern Indians”. Roberto de Nobili’s pretentious obsession all over again! This Boden-Professorship at Oxford University is a prestigious post even today. A lifetime assignment as well. The foundation of this Professorship is also a clear verdict on the quality of the Sanskrit language acquired by the missionaries and “scholars” in India. Reverse translations were, of course, less risky. To translate the Bible in

Sanskrit is, however, very earnest. But where was the person for such a Professorship? We are reminded of names like Charles Wilkins, Alexander Hamilton and Henry Thomas Colebrooke, of course! Well, Charles Wilkins is now 84. Alexander Hamilton has expired long before. Henry Thomas Colebrooke is 82. He was 77 when the money came to Oxford University. Fortunately, for Horace Hayman Wilson, he is 46 years old only; no other “Sanskrit scholar” emerged fitting the Boden-Professorship at Oxford University. The much-praised “scholars” in the “Oriental department” of the colleges in Haileybury and Addiscombe

who were responsible for training young people for the “colonial service” in India were not considered to be fit for this purpose. Does this tell us a story? Whatsoever! We are reminded of names like August Wilhelm von Schlegel, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, and Franz Bopp becoming renowned on the “continent” as Sanskrit scholars. August Wilhelm von Schlegel is well known in England as a scholar through his Shakespearetranslations. He is Professor for Literature, teaches also Sanskrit in Bonn, as it is handed-down. He is not unwilling to accept the first BodenProfessorship at Oxford University. He

expresses his interest publicly. But there is increasing resistance against him. In 1831 the news comes from far off Kolkata that Horace Hayman Wilson is also interested in the Professorship. It remains mystery why he did not forward his interest earlier for this post so important for Christianity soon after it had been established in 1827. Well, this we will never know. But we know that Horace Hayman Wilson mobilises support in the inner circle of the East India Company to frustrate August Wilhelm von Schlegel successfully and to become the first Boden-Professor in 1832. Did Horace Hayman Wilson succeed because

August Wilhelm von Schlegel was not a loyal servant of the East India Company or because he was a German? We do not know. But the matter was not to rest at that. When August Wilhelm von Schlegel comes to know about the slanderous campaign regarding his qualifications by Horace Hayman Wilson, he becomes angry. He should have actually known that a loyal servant like Horace Hayman Wilson would never have slandered without the blessings of the East India Company and of Oxford University. He knows definitely that the Oxford University as theideological spearhead of occupations of foreign

lands will never take a stand against the East India Company. None the less he makes this unfair game publicly known, states that Horace Hayman Wilson had decorated himself with the feathers of Indian “Pandits” only and wouldn’t be able to perform his duties at Oxford University without those “Pandits”. We apologise. Again we are unable to suppress a smile. Horace Hayman Wilson did not translate the Bible into Sanskrit, nor was he able to promote a translation. In 28 years as BodenProfessor he does not publish anything equivalent to his Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary of the year 1819. So ultimately August Wilhelm von

Schlegel was to be proven right. As an “insider” he knew, without their “Pandits”, “Sanskrit scholars” of that time were not worth much more than their pretentions and vices. Now it is time again to get back to Friedrich Maximilian Müller who leaves Berlin in 1845, frustrated and seeking “virgin soil left to the plough” in Paris. We remember that in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller there is a Chapter V, titled “Paris”, containing 25 pages. It begins with the lines (p. 157): “My stay in Paris from March, 1845, to June 1846, was a very useful intermezzo. It opened my mind and showed me a new world; showed me,

in fact, that there was a world besides Germany, though even of Germany and German society I had seen very little. I had been working away at school and university, but with the exception of my short stay in Berlin, I had little experience of men and manners outside the small sphere of Dessau and Leipzig.” There is no mention of “love for Sanskrit”.

CHAPTER 8

WHY DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN GO TO PARIS? “Paris will only be possible if I could meet Hagedorn somewhere, whose address I would like to get.”— Friedrich Maximilian to his mother Friedrich Maximilian Müller, we recall his biography in a very quick motion, is a young man of just above 21 years in age when he arrives in Paris. He is poor. He is sickly. He suffers from serious chronic headaches since his childhood. There is no indication that he ever

engaged himself in sport activities, excepting for duelling thrice whilst he was matriculated at Leipzig University. He is in search of an adequate future. He does not possess any post-high school certificate that could enable him to earn an adequate living. He doesn’t have an idea yet how his future would look like. After a bad start, he got a superb opportunity at the age of twelve to improve his social predicament. He lived at Leipzig under guardianship of Professor Carus in an affluent household till just before his school final. Thus, he was taught in the best high school at Leipzig, the famous “Nikolai- Schule”. But he did not fare so well there that he

could obtain a school final certificate from the famous “Nikolai- Schule”. He availed an alternative chance, we remember: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government”. He was matriculated at Leipzig University to study “philology” in the faculty of philosophy. But he did never return to the household of Professor Carus at Leipzig. We haven’t found any

reasons for his ceasing to stay in the household of Professor Carus with his friend Victor. So he fell back to poverty. He obtained however, a scholarship for poor students, 15 thalers a month granted for four years. Mother Adelheid and his sister Augusteliving on a pension of yearly 100 thalers shifted from Dessau to Leipzig. We remember: “In order to enable me to go to the University, my mother and sister moved to Leipzig and kept house for me during all the time I was there – that is two years a half”. We are also reminded of the sentimental and tear-jerking story of an offer before he took admission at the Leipzig University:

“A more ambitious journey I took in 1841 with a friend of mine, Baron von Hagedorn. ... He was a man of the world, and therefore his advice was not always what I wanted. He was also a great friend of my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna, learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name

and title, after being adopted by the Prince. ... in fact, though everything was presented to me by my cousin as on a silver tray, I shook my head and remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest.” We know by now that there is absolutely nothing behind this story. Anhalt-Dessau was a remote place even for oriental matters. His first academic teacher for Sanskrit, Hermann Brockhaus, joined Leipzig University whilst Friedrich Maximilian Müller was having his second semester. We ascertained as well that he did not study at Leipzig consequently to acquire an academic degree. He escaped from Leipzig after

consuming three scholarship.

years

of

his

It is extremely difficult to ascertain what Friedrich Maximilian Müller did really learn at Leipzig University. We can only ascertain that he attended quite a few lectures on languages like German, Latin, and Greek, one lecture each on the grammar of Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian, a few lectures on Sanskrit and “oriental” literature. In SS 1844, i.e. April to July, he took admission at Royal Frederick William University in Berlin as a student of theology. Why theology? We do not know. He might have been in search of “virgin soil”. We recall:

“I found little that could rouse my enthusiasm for Greek and Latin literature, and I always required a dose of that to make me work hard. Everything seemed to me to have been done, and there was no virgin soil left to the plough, no ruins on which to try one’s own spade.” We recall also: “I began to feel that I must know something special, something that no other philosopher knew, and that induced me to learn Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian.” It is not at all difficult to ascertain what Friedrich Maximilian Müller did

actually learn at the Royal Frederick William University as a student of theology. He learnt nothing in theology. It is, however, difficult to ascertain what he did really learn at the Royal Frederick William University. Franz Bopp was a flop except (might be) for one side aspect. He came to know that Franz Bopp had tried in Paris to copy Sanskrit handwritings in Latin. ***** We keep this background in mind and focus on the question: Why does Friedrich Maximilian Müller go to Paris? We don’t find an answer. We do not know why he goes to Paris. Neither

he, nor Max Müller, nor Georgina Max Müller has ever specified the purpose, the objective of his going to Paris for a stay. We know for sure that he does not know French! In the Nicolai-Schule there was no facility to learn French. Thereafter he did not get a chance. The language issue we keep aside for the time being. Georgina Max Müller wanted us to believe (highlighted by us): “Towards the end of November the old family friend, Baron Hagedorn, suddenly appeared in Berlin, and invited Max Müller to stay with him in Paris, to carry on his Sanskrit work.”

This sentence is so plausibly worded that no one yet has questioned its truthfulness. We recall that we had often been victim of being fed with twisted facts and swindles in her book on Max Müller in 1902. We read carefully. This apparently innocent sentence lures systematically to false tracks. We skip that part “the old family friend, Baron Hagedorn” as we already know that there is no record of a “Baron Hagedorn”, whatsoever. We accept “the old family friend, Hagedorn”. Did he appear suddenly in Berlin? Didn’t this “old family friend” know the cause of Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s coming to Berlin: “My wish to go to

Berlin arose partly from a desire to hear Bopp, but yet more from a desire to make the acquaintances of Schelling”. Why should “the old family friend, Hagedorn” want to lure Friedrich Maximilian Müller to leave Berlin “to stay with him in Paris to carry on his Sanskrit work” ? Before Friedrich Maximilian Müller completed his studies at Berlin? To stay with him in Paris “to carry on his Sanskrit work” which he did complete at Berlin? “Sanskrit work”? Which Sanskrit work? Moreover, the beginning of the sentence is also false. Hagedorn did not appear in Berlin “Towards the end of

November”, nor “suddenly” as we shall be able to know in a little while. Why did Georgina Max Müller spread all these lies? We have to put the parts of hard facts together to find an adequate answer. We now turn to Max Müller to find an adequate answer to the question: Why does Friedrich Maximilian Müller go to Paris? We mentioned already, Max Müller wrote 25 pages (p. 157 – 181) in “My Autobiography” on Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s stay in Paris. It begins, we remember, with the lines: “My stay in Paris from March, 1845, to June 1846, was a very useful intermezzo. It opened my mind and

showed me a new world; showed me, in fact, that there was a world besides Germany, though even of Germany and German society I had seen very little. I had been working away at school and university, but with the exception of my short stay in Berlin, I had little experience of men and manners outside the small sphere of Dessau and Leipzig.” Interestingly enough Max Müller avoids two significant terms while he refers to the early life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller: “learning” and “studying”. He “had been working away at school and university“. “Working away”? Well! He continues in the second paragraph:

“I had been at Berlin some nine months when in December, 1844 (in December, not in November), my old friend Baron Hagedorn came to see me, and invited me to spend some time with him in Paris (It sounds like a holiday invitation, doesn’t it?). He had his own apartments there, and promised to look after me. At the same time my cousin, Baroness Stolzenberg, whom I have mentioned before as wishing me to enter the Austrian diplomatic service, offered to send me to England at her expense as a teacher (as a teacher?). I hesitated for some days between these two offers (Are these two offers genuine? The old family friend

Hagedorn “invited me to spend some time with him in Paris” and “my cousin, Baroness Stolzenberg, ... offered to send me to England at her expense as a teacher”). I knew that my patrimony had been nearly spent at Leipzig and Berlin, and the time had come for me to support myself; and how was I to do that in Paris? On the other hand, I had long felt that for continuing my Sanskrit studies a stay in Paris and later perhaps in London also, was indispensible (“my Sanskrit studies”? We know that Friedrich Maximilian Müller didn’t have even an opportunity till 1844 to learn the Sanskrit language, not to talk of his “Sanskrit studies”. He came to Berlin

to improve his rudimentary knowledge of the Sanskrit language. We skip the heartbreaking story of an offer to him to go to England.). I had also to consider the feelings of my mother, whose whole heart was absorbed in her only son. However, Sanskrit, and my love of an independent life won the day, and I decided to accept Hagedorn’s proposal.” Well, Max Müller was extremely creative laying a false trail. He just converts an invitation to a proposal. And it remains plausible. Neither he, nor Georgina Max Müller ever even tried to explain Friedrich Maximilian Müller‘s real motive going to Paris.

Before he escaped from Leipzig University, nothing of “Paris” was in the air. We recall his letter to Theodor Fontane dated September, 1843, i.e. before the WS 1843/1844 began at Leipzig: “Dear Fontane,—I can well imagine that you have often cursed me not a little as I gave no sign of life for such a long time; but Morbus excusat hominejti, and I will add, Nisi homo excusat morbum I I hope you have carried on your Latin studies so far as to comprehend the deep meaning of these words; and if a human heart still beats in your breast, you must pity me, poor wretch, for having spent

nearly the whole vacation in a nervous fever, so that I must stay almost the whole of next term here in Leipzig. It is ill-luck, you will agree. Well, one could almost despair, but where's the good of it? I have quietly unpacked my books and things again, and sit in Reichel's Garden, up three flights, up which I have to climb with many gasps. I am in Leipzig incognito, for I had already paid my farewell visits everywhere, and altogether feel no inclination for society.” Whatsoever. His actual life in Berlin between April and December 1844 should lead us to answers to some of our queries. Of all available documents, his

letters to his mother from Berlin are the most reliable. We refer here to his letter written in the first part of May. We reproduced it in translation from German original in the sixth Chapter keeping his syntax and style as well. We read it again. Slowly. We undergo this exercise with the other letters too. We stumble on a few fleeting bites of hints which might lead us to a probable answer to the queries we are dealing with (highlighted by us). “As far as my life here is concerned, firstly I quite like my boarding. ... I am getting adjusted. My other matters here are agreeable and the house of Hensels I like most as they are extremely kind towards me. In fact

I am more often there than my time permits, ... She (Mrs. Hensel) sends you greetings and told me that she will write to you. He (Mr. Hensel) also takes interest in me and trying his most with the minister so that I can use the handwrittens at home, and I am hopeful now to get the permission. ... - Besides I have called on Bopp, Kurt Höfer, (who will review my Hitopadesa) Dr Kuhn, also a Sanskritist, whom I had recommended to Brockhaus, Professor Petermann, whose lecture on Hist. of Orint. Literat, I attend to,Prof. Schott, I attend to learn Persian, all in all I think it would be good. I also got to Schelling’s

lectures, although my budget sighs. ...– I am very much shocked about poor Emelie, as you write, please tell her about it; I shall not personally write to her, as I shall see her soon, like to know the address of Hagedorn. I have written to Simolin through his brother-in-law, the Baron von Wettberg, who was recommended by Rath. The letters to Lassen and Schlegel are also ready. – You see, it is not uncomfortable for me here, ...” We focus now on his priority of topics in this letter. “He also takes interest in me and trying his most with the minister so that I can use the handwrittens at home, and I am hopeful now to get the

permission. ... Besides I have called on Bopp, Kurt Höfer, (who will review my Hitopadesa) Dr Kuhn, also a Sanskritist, whom I had recommended to Brockhaus, Professor Petermann, whose lecture on Hist. of Orint. Literat, I attend to,- Prof. Schott, I attend to learn Persian, all in all I think it would be good. I also got to Schelling’s lectures, although my budget sighs. ... like to know the address of Hagedorn.” His next letter is dated May 22, 1844. It is almost as long as the previous one. We find only one relevant sentence about “Schelling”. We reproduce it in the given context (highlighted by us): “... About my life here, I gave you

some details in my last letter and it continues in the similar way. Four days in a week I have classes at 8.00 to 1.30, ... Then I have classes at 4.00, ... I visited also Mary which was rather dull, also Schelling, who talked to me at length and friendly on Indian philosophy and offered me his help whenever necessary. ... Prove sends you greetings, he was not able to write to you due to his forthcoming exams. Greeting from all others, Juliens, Krügers, Hensels. With a lot of greetings for Auguste and Krug remains your diligent young chap.” Next, he writes on May 28, 1844, which

is also long. We follow the same procedure (highlighted by us). “... When I consider my future and all that I have to do before I can come to rest, yes, I almost believe that Berlin is not the place to accomplish something thoroughly. … Regarding Benary it is not satisfactory; a recommendation from Alfred would please more. What Höfer says to Hitopadesha I cannot let you know yet, as it does not go so quickly; the same it is in regard to Griechenlieder. ... Regarding my scholarship I have done the needful, I have written to Justice Richter and to the President of the Chamber, both letters were sent

to Dessau through Karl, but I don’t believe that something will come out. On my life here is nothing new worth writing.” His next letter dates June 5, 1844, i.e. in the seventh week of his stay at Berlin, he sees his future less optimistic, rather gloomy (highlighted by us). “...The main thing is that I am now unexpectedly fine and lively. And my headaches did not attack so often and it seems that the climate in Berlin do suit me quite well. ... I must make use of my time in Berlin as I shall possibly not stay here longer than a year, unless I find opportunities to reduce the cost of my stay by giving

lessons to pupils which had not been possible yet. The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts; my access to them has not yet been finally decided. Where I will be next eastern is also yet to decide, optionally between Vienna, Paris and Bonn. Paris will only be possible if I could meet Hagedorn somewhere, whose address I would like to get. Vienna attracts me specially for my study of languages, i.e. Persian and Turkish which can better be learnt there than in Paris, and these are necessary to get a job in the orient. You can imagine that also these plans disturbs me often as presently I live without a definite

future perspective and renewal of matriculation is expensive and time consuming so that I cannot plan as in another three years, i.e. in all six years after the school final are needed. ...” We have reproduced the more honest descriptions in these letters up to the seventh week of his stay in Berlin. Thereafter he writes again on the 06.08.1844 indicating his absence from Berlin for weeks. The SS 1844 at Berlin had ended on 31.07.1844. Where was he? We cannot find out. Before he attended any lectures in the faculty of theology or elsewhere he tried to explore the possibility of copying

Sanskrit handwritten Manuscripts, as we remember: “He (Mr. Hensel) also takes interest in me and trying his most with the minister so that I can use the handwrittens at home, and I am hopeful now to get the permission.” “The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts, my access to them has not yet been finally decided.” There are no documents on his attendance in lectures at the university. He expresses his intentions to his mother. There also we don’t find a mention of his learning the Sanskrit

language. The question of a scholarship is still open. On August 6, and August 15, 1844 he does not mention about his absence from Berlin while the semester was on. We find nothing on his studies. Just trivial gossips and greetings. This is however, a clear indication that he never took up his studies at Berlin seriously. His letter dated August 19, 1844 is significant. The full text is in the sixth chapter. Presently we consider the following facts as significant (highlighted by us): “I am really longing to get away from Berlin so that I can once find to my

own self, as here I have the best prospect of becoming a real hypochondriac. It is not just a temporary mood; it is caused by my whole circumstances at present which lead to so many gloomy thoughts. I see it clearly that the scheme of life I had in mind cannot be realised and that it would be hard for me to break away from these favourite ideas you will definitely understand. At the same moment I see also that it would be foolish to begin an academic career under my circumstances as this is a privilege only for persons favoured by luck who can live on own money and must not depend on science. Though you tell me that I

would have 800 thalers at my disposal, but do consider that this amount would be at most enough for my eventual “Habilitation” and thereafter the prospect of maintaining myself as a “Privatdozent” for a minimum of five years without any support from the government. Practically it would mean that I begin my studies to achieve a starving future only because I once started dreaming an idea, though for which I have already spent quite some money and effort, and now unable give it up. Had I had more courage or some fixed anchor, I would possibly try my

luck, but as it is I have no other option than becoming a good school teacher and thereby earn at least enough to eat and drink. What would Emilie say and how I rejoice for my little grandmother. Also for that that you got me the address of Hagedorn which pleases me as he is the only one who could give me the right advice for my future life whereas I have to depend all on myself in such matters. How would I have been happy if he also came to Dresden?” His letter dated 25.10,1844 is informative. We have reproduced it in the sixth chapter (highlighted by us):

“I am passing my life in Berlin quietly at ease and have a lot to do. I call on others only seldom and invitations have become also rare these days, ... Probably it is somehow the same with you at Chemnitz and hopefully you can cope with the dullness of life as I do. When I sit in my mansard and for 2, 3 days I don’t see anyone I know, I feel sitting in the worst spot in this world, and Leipzig, Chemnitz and Dessau appear in my mind as real Eldorado. Yet I always try to be merry and make music in me and in my home as far as possible, but now I would like to tell you how I celebrated you birthday here. ...”

It goes on like this. Full of trivial matters, but now and then there are important bits of information also like the following: Ø “I didn’t have news from Brockhaus though I remain optimistic.” Ø ”A letter from Dessau has reached me informing that I am not to get my scholarship for the seventh term because the demand of the needed persons is much higher than the Duchy could afford. In capital letters I have written on it: lekt − − −.” Ø “I did not meet Rath in Dessau as

Humboldt is already in Paris.” Ø “Presently I have something to bite and think often of birds under the sky. They don’t warm up, they don’t freeze, but I feel cold.“ Ø “I have just read Heine. New poems. Very beautiful, and original, but very strong. They are already banned.” Ø “Now my little Mother, the vehicle does not wait, i.e. I do not know anything more to write … The seven meagre cows are forthcoming. Now wish you well, my little one, be merry, smile

once and write soon to your Doktor Max Müller.” He signs this letter as “Doktor Max Müller”. We recall our comments. We are surprised. One does not put academic titles as signature to friends or relatives, never to a mother. Secondly, one does not belie mother with a title when a person never appeared to take an academic degree, as we know from primary sources. There could be one exception if the academic title has just been earned. We know by now that Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not earn any academic title at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. And in regard to

Leipzig University we recall the detailed documentation of his student life there and what Max Müller himself has reported in “My Autobiography” on page 151 (highlighted by us): “He (Gottfried Hermann) by no means discouraged me, nay, he was sorry to lose me, when in my third year I went to Berlin. He showed me great kindness on several occasions, and when the time came to take my degree of M.A. and Ph.D., he, as Dean of the faculty, invited me to return to Leipzig, offering me an exhibition to cover the expenses of the Degree.” Then we read the last recorded letter of

Friedrich Maximilian Müller from Berlin to his mother that is dated 06.12.44 (highlighted by us). “My dear Herzenskronenmutter, As I shall have to sit here alone on my birthday I do at least take pleasure chatting a little in letters with those who love me and whom I love. There comes first my little Mama, whom this time I don’t have much to narrate. To begin with my best thanks for your love and kindness, this is too great. The cigar case is very pretty and bought from Geiger was definitely very expensive. … Now I would tell you of other matters rather than Hagedorn,

Emilie, etc., especially of my correspondences. ...To begin with I have received a very friendly letter from Lassen at Bonn that greatly pleased me. Then I had written to Rath to get a letter from the Duchess recommending me to Humboldt. Soon thereafter Rath sent me, along with her exuberantly friendly note, the letter of the Duchess which I delivered to Humboldt with my card. Next day I met him for 1 ½ hours and 8 days later he informed me in a letter that I am permitted to take the Sanskrit MSS home for which I petitioned to the ministry for months. Thirdly regarding my Wolkenboten (Meghaduta) the delay was caused by

Professor Brockhaus, which he has presently sent me back and you will see from his letter that he is very satisfied with it. I have given this also to Rückert from whom I learn Persian who knew Father also. … Last Tuesday Elze came to me after being visited by Hagedorns to ask to come to Cafe Imperial where we, Hagedorn, Elze and Brückner und me, merrily enjoyed drinks. Nothing could be discussed there. As Hagedorns and Frietel had some family business in Potsdam on Wednesday, Hagedorn asked me to visit him on Thursday morning. We had long gossips but the essence of that was that he offered me to accompany him to Paris and stay

with him and do my work. The rental cost would be approximately 1 ½ - 2 ½ thalers. ...” We sum up the implicit and explicit hard facts from his letters from Berlin to his mother. Friedrich Maximilian Müller had decided already in Leipzig not to continue with his studies in philology. An exploration of his motive is beyond our reach in terms of hard facts. Seemingly he started gambling with his future in search of “virgin soil ... to the plough, ... ruins on which to try one’s own spade” in Berlin. Instead availing to his only realistic option, “I would possibly try my luck, but as it is I have no other option than becoming a good

school teacher and thereby earn at least enough to eat and drink”, he gambled in favour of “The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts, my access to them has not yet been finally decided.” So, trying eventually becoming a school teacher was already ruled out. In his inner mind Friedrich Maximilian Müller had discarded all other options as early as mid May 1844 than gambling on finding “virgin soil” in copying handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts. We recall his second letter to his mother: “He (Mr. Hensel) also takes interest in me and trying his most with the minister so that I can use the

handwrittens at home, and I am hopeful now to get the permission. ... like to know the address of Hagedorn.” From his letter dated June 5, 1844, we know: “The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts, my access to them has not yet been finally decided. Where I will be next eastern is also yet to decide, optionally between Vienna, Paris and Bonn. Paris will only be possible if I could meet Hagedorn somewhere, whose address I would like to get.” His letter dated 19.08.1844 informs us: “Also for that that you got me the

address of Hagedorn which pleases me as he is the only one who could give me the right advice for my future life whereas I have to depend all on myself in such matters. How would I have been happy if he also came to Dresden.” In all probability, he persuaded himself to this gamble reading that all established Sanskrit “scholars” did practice copying handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts, but they did not pursue their goal consequently. All of them did it in Paris. We remember Friedrich von Schlegel, Antoine Léonard de Chézy and Franz Bopp. On top of it he knew that Paris was a hot spot for “orientalists” also because many

handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts were kept over there. He decided to tread on footsteps of established Sanskrit scholars, and try to go a little further, it seems. This might explain his keen interest to go to Paris after he would have completed copying those few handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts kept in Berlin. But, we remember, he got access to them only: “Then I had written to Rath to get a letter from the Duchess recommending me to Humboldt. Soon thereafter Rath sent me, along with her exuberantly friendly note, the letter of the Duchess which I delivered to Humboldt with my card.

Next day I met him for 1 ½ hours and 8 days later he informed me in a letter that I am permitted to take the Sanskrit MSS home for which I petitioned to the ministry for months.” He leaves Berlin before he has copied a single of those handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts. He practically escapes from two universities without acquiring a single academic degree. He has now reached the age to sit for an exam for “Magister Artium”. We recall the stipulation: ‘Before one can acquire his “Magister Artium” one has to complete at least six semesters passing through a tightly stipulated study-plan and has to

complete his 21 years of age. Before one is permitted to the examinational formalities of “Magister Artium” one must have acquired his first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. The minimum stipulated time-period to obtain this first academic degree of “Baccalaureates” is completing three semesters. No age limit is stipulated to obtain this first academic degree of “Baccalaureates”. These are hard facts. We cannot overlook another hard fact which is not so explicit. His scholarship for poor students was cancelled after seven semesters instead of eight. Thus he was financially stranded after his first semester of theology at Berlin. He had to

move away from Berlin. He preferred to depend on financial support of “the family friend Hagedorn”. The other options he mentioned appear to us as dummies. He could not afford to stay at Berlin. ***** Now we have reached the point to formulate our next question: What does Friedrich Maximilian Müller do in Paris? However, we cannot begin our next chapter before we raise and clarify the following issue. We have encountered that on various issues Max Müller distorted facts to glorify his self in “My

Autobiography”. As simple-minded persons, we call the distortions just lies and swindles. We were not certain whether Friedrich Maximilian Müller had already evolved to a swindler as well. Studying his letters to his mother, we are inclined to ascertain that he did systematically practice telling concocted stories also to his mother. We know also that attributes of personal characters are the results of a social learning process. The type of social learning is conditioned by the prevailing cultural climate. We have witnessed in two thoroughly documented chapters that not a single person of all those claiming to have known the Sanskrit language, did

learn the Sanskrit language. They swindled indiscriminately amongst themselves. None of them could have challenged the claims of any of them. Together they established themselves as scholars and befooled others. Mobbing was the most that they could afford. Keeping this cultural climate of swindling in mind, we are reminded and tempted to recall the cute story told by Max Müller of his “first love, Sanskrit and the rest” (Autobiography, p. 109111) which is placed in the year 1841 (highlighted by us): “A more ambitious journey I took in 1841 with a friend of mine, Baron von Hagedorn. He was a curious and

somewhat mysterious character. He had been brought up by a great-aunt of mine, to whom he was entrusted as a baby. No one knew his parents, but they must have been rich, for he possessed a large fortune. He had a country place near Munich, and he spent the greater part of the year in travelling about and amusing himself. He had been brought up with my mother and other members of our family, and he took a very kind interest in me. ... Hagedorn, with all his love of mystery and occasional exaggeration, was certainly a good friend to me. He often gave me good advice, and was more of a father to me than a mere friend. He was a man

of the world, and therefore his advice was not always what I wanted. He was also a great friend of my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna, learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name and title, after being adopted by the Prince. To other young men this might have seemed

irresistible. I at once said no. It seemed to interfere with my freedom, with my studies, with my ideal of a career in life; in fact, though everything was presented to me by my cousin as on a silver tray, I shook my head and remained true to my first love, Sanskrit and the rest. Hagedorn could not understand this; he thought a brilliant life preferable to the quite life of a professor. Not so I.” Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s letters from Berlin to his mother manifest that he had a cousin Emilie. He had no other cousin. She, “my cousin who was married to a Prince of Dessau, and they had agreed among themselves that

I should go to the Oriental Academy at Vienna, learn Oriental languages, and then enter the diplomatic service. As there were no children from the Prince’s marriage, I was to be adopted by him, and, as if the princely fortune was not enough to tempt me, I was told that even a wife had been chosen for me, and that I should have a new name and title, after being adopted by the Prince.” We refer to our Third Chapter. We have dealt with this story in details. We recall only one detail. Waldemar Wilhelm von Anhalt-Dessau was born on May 29, 1807 in Dessau , died 1864 in Vienna. He married “morganatic” on 9 July

1840 Caroline Emilie (1812-1888). She was raised to a “wife of a Baron” while Waldemar Wilhelm von Anhalt-Dessau lived incognito the life of a baron William Stolzenberg in Vienna. In Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s letter from Berlin to his mother dated June 5, 1844 we read (highlighted by us): “The sole purpose of staying here is copying handwritten texts, my access to them has not yet been finally decided. Where I will be next eastern is also yet to decide, optionally between Vienna, Paris and Bonn. Paris will only be possible if I could meet Hagedorn somewhere, whose address I would like to get. Vienna attracts me especially for

my study of languages, i.e. Persian and Turkish which can better be learnt there than in Paris, and these are necessary to get a job in the orient.” Vienna could never been an option unless we buy the story: “At the same time my cousin, Baroness Stolzenberg, whom I have mentioned before as wishing me to enter the Austrian diplomatic service,...” We would buy this story if it could be explained how Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s only cousin Emilie could live in the vicinity of his mother, and at the same time this only cousin could live in Vienna as Baroness Stolzenberg. Without this Baroness Stolzenberg in Vienna

Friedrich Maximilian could impossibly have an option between Vienna and Paris. Moreover, we have not overlooked that Friedrich Maximilian Müller in his letters to his mother does not mention Baroness Stolzenberg as Max Müller did. Now we would like to know: What does Friedrich Maximilian do in Paris?

CHAPTER 9

WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN DO IN PARIS? In December 1844, Friedrich Maximilian Müller comes to Paris. He is 21 years old. He is sickly. He is poor. He remains a mummy’s boy, spoiled as well. He obtained a scholarship for poor students for four years. It was countermanded after three and a half years. His efforts to get that “Leopold Stipendium”, founded by the Duke of Anhalt Dessau for poor scholars failed. Financially he is stranded. He leaves Berlin sometime in December 1844.

Practically he has not learnt anything enabling him to earn his living. He made no effort to give private lessons, neither at Leipzig nor at Berlin. He rather depended on his poor mother. We apologise that we are unable to suppress a smile, when we remember those cute stories narrated by Max Müller. The hard fact is that the “family friend” Hagedorn was the last straw to clutch at. All the time at Berlin Friedrich Maximilian was working on this chance, as we recall the letters to his mother. We remember the lines written by Friedrich Maximilian on December 6, 1844: “We had long gossips but the essence of that was that he offered me

to accompany him to Paris and stay with him and do my work. The rental cost would be approximately 1 ½ - 2 ½ thalers.” We are inclined to put a question mark to “rental cost”. His “family friend Hagedorn” is wealthy, so it is said. And he was maintaining a furnished flat at Paris. Friedrich Maximilian knew this all the time. Friedrich Maximilian moves immediately thereafter to Chemnitz and waits upon his “family friend Hagedorn”. He could not afford to stay on at Berlin to “copy those handwrittens” kept in the University Library there. The “family friend Hagedorn” does not turn up. He is busy.

Friedrich Maximilian becomes impatient. Ultimately, they meet in Dessau and agree that he travels to Paris alone. The “family friend Hagedorn” will join him later. He arrives in Paris on March 10, 1845. In Paris, people speak French. French people are, as ever, reluctant to speak any other language than French. He does not speak or understand French. But he has the address where he can stay, the apartment of the “old family friend Hagedorn”. In Chapter III of her book Georgina Max Müller writes seventeen pages (30 - 47) on Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s stay in Paris under the headings: “Paris”. “Lonely, struggling life”.

“Gathy”. “Burnouf”. “Rig-veda”. “Rachel”. “Dvarkanath Tagore”. “Boehtlingk”. “Rig-veda” is a subject. “Gathy, Burnouf, Rachel, Dvarkanath Tagore, Boehtlingk are names. She begins this chapter with the following lines: “Archdeacon Hare lost no time in responding to the letter of November 27 from Chevalier Bunsen, for we find a note from Max Müller to the Chevalier dated 'Chemnitz, January 1, 1845,' which implies that one, if not more letters had already passed between them as to a tutorship in an English family, suggested by the Archdeacon. But we will leave Max to

tell his own further story in his Diary.” These two names, Archdeacon Hare and Chevalier Bunsen did not occur yet in any of the primary documents. We let Archdeacon Hare be Archdeacon Hare. But Chevalier Bunsen does draw our attention. Bunsen seems to be a German name. And Chevalier is a class of membership in a French or Belgian Order of Chivalry or order of merit. Our search shows that a “Chevalier Bunsen” did never exist. This Bunsen is most probably Christian Charles Josias Bunsen (1791 – 1860). He climbed the ladder up to a Prussian Diplomat. We shall deal with him in detail later. We

apologise for this looking a little ahead. Here only this much: Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was born at Korbach in 1791, an old town in the little German principality called Waldeck. His father was a farmer who was driven by poverty to become a soldier for a better living. Thus, Christian could complete his high school. It is handed down that the Jena University “granted him the honorary degree of doctor of philosophy”, though he did not study there. How and why, we don’t get it straight in our head. Nowhere had he earned an academic degree. In 1838 he settled down in London spent his life there up to 1854 as

a very influential person though he was only the ambassador of Prussia there. In September 1857, about three years before he dies, the Prussian King Frederick William raised him to the title of a baron and a peerage for life. We naturally raise the question: Why did Georgina Max Müller mention “Chevalier Bunsen” in the very first paragraph of her “Chapter in Paris”? We don’t find an answer, or an explanation. She referred also to “his Diary”. We take liberty to mention a little ahead that we do not consider this “his Dairy” being an authentic source of information. The diary seems to us to be a fake or at least as faulty as her “translations”

presented in her two volumes. Her translations are no translations at all. Whatever she has quoted from his “Diary” in her translations or from his letters to his mother in translations could not be formulated like that by a person like Friedrich Maximilian. They are edited and often the contents are manipulated. From the original letters to his mother we know by now Friedrich Maximilian‘s syntax, his style and the quality of his command on his vernacular language. We refrain presently from making additional remarks to Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s ability of expressions in writing. Presently we continue our

reading Georgina Max Müller also as examples of her manipulations. Highlights are ours. “Translation. Bonn, March 6, 1845. ’Once more a new change in my life, and once more an attempt at something definite. My stay in Berlin is over; I have made many and influential friends there—Schelling, Rückert, Humboldt, Bopp, Jacobi, Mendelssohn. My views of life become clearer and more sensible, my inner life more active and more independent of outward circumstances. There was not much to be gained in knowledge in Berlin ;

the learned men are too learned, too reserved, and do not attempt to gain any influence ; and even the treasures of the Library were long closed to me, till a word from Humboldt put an end to the constant refusals of the librarian Pertz and the Minister. In December Hagedorn came to Berlin and asked me to stay with him in Paris, and just then I received an offer to go as a tutor to London. Great indecision. At length decided on Paris and its pleasant independence, though at the same time I did not refuse all other possible offers. I had a longing for Paris, and I soon went to Chemnitz, saw Hagedorn in Dessau, where he

was dawdling. I was some time in Chemnitz and had a good deal of society, balls, sledge-parties, &c., but not a word from Hagedorn. So I started at last for Dessau, not feeling much confidence in Hagedorn. When we met we got on very well and settled everything. On February 26 I started for Paris. In Cothen the train was stopped by the snow, and we returned by extra post to Dessau. Here Hagedorn found business letters which kept him. At last, March 3, I started alone for Hanover. The 4th to Elberfeld ; at night by post to Deutz, arriving early in Cologne; railway to Bonn. Table d'hote in Hotel de Trèves; two English families, whom

I could not understand; very cross. Afternoon to Lassen, not very interesting talk; five o'clock, lecture by Dahlmann on Publicity, Coming of Age, Jury, &c.; very remarkable, quiet, no gesticulations, irrefutable, convincing, a skilful man. In Bonn the old topics still going on— Catholicism, the Holy Coat, and Protestantism.’” “Paris, March 15. ‘My journey is happily over. I left Bonn on the 6th for Cologne, and started on the 8th for Brussels ; here I found myself already in the midst of French, which I found very troublesome. I stayed the night. On

the ninth, I started at three o'clock by train. On the way difficulties with the douane and my passport; the 10th at three o'clock I arrived in Paris.’ Max MülIer has himself given us an amusing account of his difficulties on his arrival in Paris, owing to Hagedorn having failed either to write or appear ; and though he stayed in Paris till June, 1846, as Hagedorn never came he lived at his own expense in Hagedorn's rooms, instead of being his friend's guest as was at first arranged. If he found economy necessary in Berlin, it was far more so in Paris, where soon after his arrival he says, ‘I am spending a lot of money’

; though in his carefully kept accounts there are very few entries but for dinner—for which, unless he went 'hors la barrière,' he had to pay two francs —and copying paper, the amount of which shows how hard he was working. His life was very lonely ; he at first knew hardly anyone but some of the employs at the Library, and he says, March 17, ‘I feel very lonely and forsaken, and of Paris I see nothing’; and again, ' Great inertia and fatigue, and out of spirits, no inclination for work'; and yet he writes cheerily to his mother not to distress her:— Translation. Paris, April 10, 1845.” We shall get back to this “Translation.

Paris, April 10, 1845,” in a little while. We mentioned already, Max Müller wrote 25 pages (p. 157 – 181) in “My Autobiography” narrating Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s stay at Paris. It was a difficult beginning. Before he reached Paris he was hopelessly exhausted. On page 158 ff, we read (Obviously, he did not remember his own diary, if we would trust Georgina Max Müller!) Max Müller wrote (highlighted by us): “At first all went well. I stopped a few days at Bonn, and again at Brussels, where I had my first experience of hearing a foreign language spoken round me, and found that my French

was sadly deficient (He did not learn French in his schools.) But from Brussels on, my experiences were anything but agreeable. The journey to Paris took twenty-four hours, and we travelled day and night without any stop for meals. ... When we crossed the frontier the luggage of all passengers was carefully examined. But the douanier, in trying to open my portmanteau, broke the lock, and then began a fearful cursing and swearing. I was perfectly helpless. I could hardly understand what the French douaniers said, still less make them understand what I had to say. ... But my miseries were not yet over, on

the contrary, they became much worse. On my arrival in Paris I got a fiacre and told the man to drive to 25, Rue St. Honoré; but alas! At the right number of the Rue St. Honoré, the concierge stared at me, telling me that no Baron Hagedorn lived there. Try Faubourg St. Honoré, they said, but here the same thing happened. And all this was on a rainy afternoon, I being tired out with travelling and fasting, and perfectly overwhelmed by the immensity of Paris. I knew nobody at Paris, having trusted for all such things to Baron Hagedorn, in fact I was au désespoir. Then I was driving along the Boulevard des Italiens, looking out of the window, I saw a

familiar figure – a little hunchback whom I had known at Dessau, where he studied music under Schneider. It was M. Gathy, a man well known by his musical writings, particularly his Dictionary of music. I shrieked Gathy! Gathy! and he was as much surprised when he recognized the little boy from Dessau, as I was when in this vast Paris I discovered at last a face which I knew. I jumped out of my carriage, told Gathy all that had happened to me, being all the time between complete despair and perfect delight. He knew Hagedorn and his rooms very well. It was the Rue Royale St. Honorè. The concierge was quite prepared for my arrival,

and took us both to the rooms which were au cinquième, but large and extremely well furnished. ... He (M. Gathy) was the most charming of the men, half German, half French, full of esprit, and, what was more important to me, full of real kindness and love. As soon as I saw him I felt I was safe, and so I was, though I had still some battles to fight. First of all, I had taken but little money with me, looking upon Hagedorn as my bank. Fortunately I remembered the name of one of his friends, about whom Hagedorn had often spoken to me and who was in Rothschilds’s bank. I went there to find that he was away, but another gentleman there told me that

I could have as much money as liked till Hagedorn or his friend came back. So I was lucky, unlucky as I had been before.” What a sellable heartbreaking story! We were however curious. We searched in the web-search-engines. We could not find M. Gathy, “a man well known by his musical writings, particularly his Dictionary of music”. Not exactly so. We find, as a matter of fact, a reference to one M. Gathy, referred in Max Müller’s “My Autobiography”. We find however one Franz August Gathy who authored a conversation Lexicon on music (Musikalisches ConversationsLexikon, Leipzig 1835). Well! We let it

be as it is. We wondered more about the sentence: “I had taken but little money with me, looking upon Hagedorn as my bank.” How so? We don’t find any reference anywhere Hagedorn to be his Bank. Hereafter Max Müller gives an account of the first impressions at Paris. We read on pages 162/163 (highlighted by us): “... and I remember specially a few days after my arrival, when I went to watch ‘le tout Paris’ going out to the races at Longchamps, that I was so struck by the difference between streets full of equipages of all sorts, ladies in resplendent dresses and well- groomed gentlemen, and the

quiet streets that I had been accustomed to in Dessau and Leipzig that I could hardly keep myself from laughing out loud. However, when the novelty wore off there was another contrast that struck me, and made me more inclined to cry this time than to laugh, and that was, that while at home I knew almost every face I passed, here in these crowds I was a stranger and knew no one, and I suffered cruelly from the solitude at first. I began my work, however, at once, and on the third day after my arrival I was at the Bibliothèque Royale armed with a letter of introduction

from Humboldt (a letter of introduction from Humboldt? Was he not there in Paris?), and the very next day was already at work collating the MSS. of Kathaka Upanishad (We take a note of the term collating and remember what Georgina Max Müller quoted from a diary of Friedrich Maximilian Müller, dated 28. June 1844 on page 25 of her book: “I attend Schelling's course more diligently and with great interest ; his philosophy has something Oriental about it. I am translating the Kathaka Upanishad for him with great diligence.). I had also to devote some hours daily to the study of French; ...

Next came the great question, how to make the acquaintance of Burnouf. I did not know the world. I did not know whether I should write to him first, in what language, and to what address. I knew Burnouf from his books, and I felt a desperate respect for him. (Again we take a note here because (Eugène) Burnouf wrote in French only, Friedrich Maximilian Müller could not read French and those books of Burnouf were not translated in German.) Aftera time Gathy discovered his address for me, and I summoned up my courage to call on him. My French was very poor as yet, but I walked in and found a dear old gentleman in his robe de

chamber, surrounded by his books and his children – four little daughters who were evidently helping him in collecting and alphabetically arranging a number of slips on which he had jotted down whatever had struck him as important in his readin3g during the day. He received me with great civility, such as I had not been accustomed to before. He spoke of some little book which I had published (which little book?), and enquired warmly after my teachers in Germany, such as Brockhaus, Bopp, and Lassen (Bopp and Lassen as his teacher? How that?). He told me I might attend his lectures in the Collège de France, and he would

always be most happy to give me advice and help. ... I must have seemed very stupid to him when I tried to explain to him what I really wanted to do in Paris. He told me afterwards that he could not make me out first. I wanted to study Veda (how this?), but I had told him at the same time that I thought the Vedic hymns very stupid, and that I cared chiefly for their philosophy, that is, the Upanishads.” We apologise for our immediate urge to introduce here a few hard facts. Eugène Burnouf (1801 –1852) was 44 years old when Friedrich Maximilian Müller came to Paris and met him, not actually

an old man, isn’t it? His father, Professor Jean-Louis Burnouf (17751844), was a scholar of high reputation, and the author, among other works, of an excellent translation of Tacitus (6 vols.). As mentioned in our Chapter Seven, Eugène Burnouf published in 1826 an Essai sur le Pali ..., written in collaboration with Christian Lassen; and in the following year Observations grammaticales sur quelques passages de l'essai sur le Pali. Pali is a postSanskrit language in India. Many Buddhist literatures are written in Pali. Eugène Burnouf never claimed to be a Sanskrit scholar or to have learnt the Sanskrit language. He never claimed to

have worked on Vedic philosophy or Vedic science or anything Vedic. He might have learnt Pali. He has worked on Buddhism and published. Later he specialized in deciphering of the Avesta manuscripts brought to France by Abraham-Hyacinthe AnquetilDuperron. Max Müller, mildly spoken, has swindled when he wrote: “He (Eugène Burnouf) spoke of some little book which I had published, and enquired warmly after my teachers in Germany, such as Brockhaus, Bopp, and Lassen.” Presently we get back to the first letter of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother from Paris dated April 10, 1845,

as presented by Georgina Max Müller with introduction, we recall (Highlighted by us): “His life was very lonely; he at first knew hardly any one but some of the employés at the Library, and he says, March 17, 'I feel very lonely and forsaken, and of Paris I see nothing’ ; and again, 'Great inertia and fatigue, and out of spirits, no inclination for work' ; and yet he writes cheerily to his mother not to distress her :— Translation. Paris, April 10, 1845. 'Of course I have heard nothing from Hagedorn, and therefore do not expect to see him very soon. But it is

well I did not further postpone my journey, for Humboldt being here has been of the greatest use to me, and he goes away now very soon. (Sorry. We stumble here. We read Friedrich Maximilian Müller that Alexander von Humboldt helped him being personally present in Paris. But we read in the “My Autobiography” by Max Müller: “I began my work, however, at once, and on the third day after my arrival I was at the Bibliothèque Royale armed with a letter of introduction from Humboldt, and the very next day was already at work collating the MSS. of Kathaka Upanishad.”We are unable to “collate”

these two factual statements. We rather continue our reading Georgina Max Müller’s translation) ‘He (Alexander von Humboldt) is kindness itself, and is even thought more of in Paris than in Berlin. It is very difficult to get leave here to take out MSS. to work at home, and the Prussian Minister, under whose protection I am here—for in Paris no one has heard of such a land as Anhalt Dessau—is so stupid that he has never given his guarantee for such a purpose, whilst all other Ambassadors, even the Turkish, are constantly doing so. Humboldt knew this, but told me he thought I should

find his own guarantee considered quite satisfactory; and it is quite true. I soon had the MSS. in my hands, and was treated in so friendly a way by all the employés, that I was quite astonished, till at last I was told, "Vous êtes si vivement recommandé par M. Humboldt, il n'y a pas une meilleure recommandation." As to the printed books, I have not yet got the permit, but hope soon to do so, though this is more difficult ; leave is seldom given, and all Paris, learned and unlearned, sit in the reading-room, packed like herrings, and read there. I have been now for some time in full swing of work, and only wish there were more

strength in the machine, for there is endless work to be done here. You will wish for a description of my life ; that is soon given. I get up early, have breakfast, i. e. bread and butter, no coffee. I stay at home and work till seven, go out and have dinner, come back in an hour, and stay at home and work till I go to bed. So you see I know nothing of Paris but from my appetite, which has got over its first astonishment at the excellence of everything, and now rather wonders that the Paris restaurants are so renowned. But one thing I have seen, that is, that everything in Paris is terribly expensive. With 12,000 francs a year one could live here nicely; I

am afraid I shall hardly work my income up to that. I am on the whole well, though I must live most economically and avoid every expense not actually necessary. The free lodging is an immense help, for unless one lives in a perfect hole, one must pay 50 or 60 francs a month and 10 francs for service, 60 francs dinner, 30 francs breakfast; this makes 160 francs a month without light and fire, or washing and clothes, nearly 2,000 francs a year. Theatres, cafés, &c., are very dear, particularly for foreigners, who don't know how to manage ; so I have not been to any theatre, except one evening, when I had to pay 2 francs

for a cup of chocolate. I thought, " Never again." But don't think I have nothing to amuse me. I can only say, one walk on the Boulevards is far better than two evenings at the Chemnitz theatre. It is a strange feeling to be so entirely strange among the thousands of faces that pass by one, and for interesting observation there is no place like this. How often I say to myself, "Oh, if mother were only here." Yesterday and to-day are called in the serious world Holy Thursday and Good Friday; here they are called Longchamps, and all Paris is driving out through the Champs Èlysées in their finest clothes, but looking

miserable in this cold. The hero of the day is General Tom Thumb ; the Rue Richelieu is blocked the days he receives ; the aristocracy vie with each other in running after him, and of course Louis Philippe at their head. I have seen both heroes without paying—Tom Thumb in his carriage, which is about as big as a child's gocart, and the King to-day for the first time when I crossed the Place du Carrousel just as they were on parade, and the old King was riding round bare-headed with all his suite. I was only twenty paces from him ; he has a very characteristic face, full, with thick grey curly hair, but in spite of his dignity something cunning and

crafty in his eyes. I see his likeness but too often, that is whenever I have to pay away a five-franc piece, which, alas ! happens frequently. By-the-by I have just paid 50 francs for books ; what do you say to that ? Gathy sent me one day a ticket for a concert, where I saw the beau monde of Paris ; he is most friendly to me. Twice a week I go to lectures at the College de France. It is some way off; but they are very good, and I pay nothing and I hear French spoken, for which otherwise I have hardly any opportunity. But enough of my fife here, which, if on the whole very simple, keeps me in good spirits as you see, and at all events does not as

yet interfere with my work. But you can fancy that in this utterly strange land I sometimes feel lonely and forsaken, and would gladly find myself for a few hours in Chemnitz with you all. But the best cure for such thoughts is continuous work, and that I have. And then when I think of you all I feel I am not so far from you ; I know all you would say to me if I were sitting with you, and all that you are often in your thoughts saying to me. Separation loses its bitterness when we have faith in each other and in God. Faith in each other keeps us close together in life, and faith in God keeps us together in eternity. But I see I am talking Sanskrit philosophy

(what is Sanskrit philosophy?) instead of simply telling you not to be unhappy, not to make yourself and others uneasy, but try to enjoy life in this lovely spring weather, whether in Chemnitz or Dresden. How gladly I would have put something in the letter for Auguste's birthday from the Paris shops, for the sight of the splendid and tastefully arranged windows is most tempting. But, alas ! my purse suffers from chronic consumption; you know this family complaint, which has followed me to Paris.'” We could have brought the original letter in German and our translation in the

syntax and style of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. This would show once more how unscrupulously Georgina Max Müller manipulated. We rather try a somehow less boring presentation. The original letter is almost double in length. First we bring our translation of the beginning part that has completely been deleted by her (highlighted by us): “Paris 10. April 45 My dear Mother, I’d almost not begin with my letter to tell you that I am rather angry with you for some time because, although after dispatching my letter from Paris my toughest four weeks have not yet

ended, I did look out with longing eyes through the window to the concierge, as I always thought that he might have a few lines from you to deliver. But I cannot indeed be angry with you, my little Mama, as I know so well how gladly you would have written than to hurt me by not sending me a letter, I better look forward getting your letter soon. I certainly know someone, and I believe she is my Mama, who would be anxious since days if she would receive no news from his lost son and at least be apprehensive that he was eaten up by worms in a graveyard, naturally not, I think you are keeping good health and spirit in Chemnitz

and thinking at times of me and will write to me soon. Should I be apprehensive that something has happened in Chemnitz that you have fallen ill and not being able to write to me? I always tell myself, one should always hope for the best till the evil has been established.” (Why was this beginning part of the letter deleted by Georgina Max Müller? We may get an answer when we get back to the introduction of the letter given by her: “His life was very lonely ; he at first knew hardly any one but some of the employés at the Library, and he says, March 17, 'I feel very lonely and forsaken, and of Paris I see

nothing' ; and again, 'Great inertia and fatigue, and out of spirits, no inclination for work' ; and yet he writes cheerily to his mother not to distress her :— Translation. Paris, April 10, 1845”. Well, we continue with the original letter.) “From Hagedorn naturally no news yet and I hardly expect it soon. I am however very glad that I did not delay my departure because the presence of Humboldt here was of great benefit for me and he will be leaving Paris very soon. This man really is of all smiles and grace whereas he is in Paris much more respected than he is in Berlin. Here it is extremely

difficult to be permitted to take handwrittens to home to work with, and the ambassador of Prussia, under whose protection I am placed here (he was holding a passport issued by the Government of Prussia), because no one knows about a country called Anhalt-Desssau, is such a nut, that he never (how should he have known?) gave a guaranty for such a cause, whereas all other ambassadors, even the Turkish ambassador do it. Humboldt knew about this and he told me that he is convinced that his guaranty will be sufficient, and thus in a short while I did get the manuscripts and I was received by all persons there with such great

kindness that I overwhelmingly wondered till I found out the key to it, that was: “Vous êtes si vivement recommandé par M. Humboldt, il n'y a pas une meilleure recommandation.” As regard to the printed books I haven’t received permission yet, though I hope to get a decision soon, although it is more difficult because no books are lent out as a rule, as learned and unlearned Paris sit and work in the halls of the library congested like herrings from the very morning. I myself got fully busy in activities since for quite some time and wished that my machine will have more power because there is no death of

materials to work with.” (Just for comparison we reproduce the translation of this part of the letter by Georgina Max Müller in a polished English syntax and style: “Of course I have heard nothing from Hagedorn, and therefore do not expect to see him very soon. But it is well I did not further postpone my journey, for Humboldt being here has been of the greatest use to me, and he goes away now very soon. He is kindness itself, and is even thought more of in Paris than in Berlin. It is very difficult to get leave here to take out MSS. to work at home, and the Prussian Minister, under whose protection I am

here—for in Paris no one has heard of such a land as Anhalt Dessau—is so stupid that he has never given his guarantee for such a purpose, whilst all other Ambassadors, even the Turkish, are constantly doing so. Humboldt knew this, but told me he thought I should find his own guarantee considered quite satisfactory ; and it is quite true. I soon had the MSS. in my hands, and was treated in so friendly a way by all the employés, that I was quite astonished, till at last I was told, "Vous êtes si vivement recommandé par M. Humboldt, il n'y a pas une meilleure recommandation." As to the printed books, I have not yet got the permit, but hope soon to do so, though

this is more difficult ; leave is seldom given, and all Paris, learned and unlearned, sit in the reading-room, packed like herrings, and read there. I have been now for some time in full swing of work, and only wish there were more strength in the machine, for there is endless work to be done here.”) Then again, Georgina Max Müller deletes the following part of the letter without giving any indication that parts were deleted in her reproduction of the original letter: “One does not believe, to what extent the manifold impressions can distract, which are instinctively

produced by passing colourful sceneries of this city and how difficult it is to find your own self, i.e. to get accustomed to them, to feel at home and not to be shocked again. And yet I haven’t seen much of Paris, i.e. those places of interest par excellence seen till now that much or so little like almost nothing, partly because it does not attract me so much to observe alone and drive yourself in company of a mass, and partly because, I think, there is yet time for it and my guide will come to Paris some time, and see things together with him with pleasure.” We wonder why Georgina Max Müller

also deleted this part. We however continue reading the original letter: “If I should give you a picture of my new life, that is done with few sketches, i.e. I get up early, take some breakfast, i.e. Bread and butter, no coffee etc., stay at home and work till seven ‘clock in the evening, go out then for lunch (“Mittag”), come back in an hour, am again at home till I go to bed, which is, incidentally mentioned, very comfortable, a la Hagedorn. So you see, I know Paris only from the calls of my stomach which has however left behind its first enchantment, so that I hardly comprehend where the great fame of restaurants in Paris came from

beyond the charm of novelty, now I wonder about my fancy of carriages in Paris on which I can only laugh and you won’t imagine how a carriage in Paris really look like. All in all I realize that living in Paris is disreputably expensive and that one gets for a lot of money far too little or poor quality. With 12000 Fr. one could lead a nice life, I however believe hardly to be able to earn that much, but I feel fine within my limits, though I have to keep a check on me seriously and avoid any unnecessary expenditures. My free lodging is a great advantage, if you would not lodge in a hole but live like a German you have to pay a monthly rent of 50

fr., adding 10 fr. for caretaking, 80 fr. for meals, 30 fr. for breakfast, so it comes to a sum of 160 fr. without light, heating, oven, washing clothes, tailor and cobbler. That makes approximately 2000 fr. per year. Going to theatre, coffeehouse, etc. is terribly expensive, especially for a foreigner not knowing about choices. So I had not been in a theatre and when on a nice day I paid 2 fr. for a cup of chocolate, I thought and told myself: Shit, never again. Please don’t think that there is nothing here to be merry, I tell you, to walk down the Boulevards once is more pleasant than to be twice in a theatre in Chemnitz. It is quite a nice feeling to

be so foreign amongst a mass of faces that continuously pass you. For observances there are no better places. Very often I think how nice it would have been if mother would be here and when there is none for exchange of feelings, I start laughing loudly, really loudly and when people look at me in astonishment, I say “apes”. Can you remember, those March days, 19-21, those severely cold days in Erzgebirge, I had to buy timber for heating, just to hang my gown near the fireplace. These days, the Holy Thursday and Good Friday are called in this remarkable part of the world Longchamps …(This is followed by a long aria of a page on

his first impressions of Paris. Thereafter) I have however not called on anybody excepting a young man belonging to Stuttgart who is engaged with Sanskrit, whom I have met in the course given by Burnouf. I attend by the way twice a lecture in “collegé de France”. It is only half an hour away from my flat, but it is very good and costs me nothing. At the same time one listens to spoken French for that I almost don’t get an opportunity, so that, up till now, I have learnt to read the menu-card only, which is however not insignificant as there are a minimum of 200 dishes listed.

Now it is enough of my utter life, which is, even though all in all, very simple, none the less as you see, it keeps me in good mood, at least it is not unpleasant und disturbing. You can on the other hand well imagine, how one feels lonely and deserted in this absolute alien and how I would desire to be in Chemnitz for a few hours just to enjoy not only the utter life. The best means against such moods and alienations are continuous activities, which scare away the crickets and brings one back to senses. And when I again remember you all, then I feel like, as if I was not far away from you at all, I know all what you will tell me, if I would sit

with you, and know what you also often talk to me in thought. A separation loses all its bitterness when there you have mutual confidence and confidence in God. The confidence in each other keeps us in finiteness and the confidence in God embraces us in eternity. The former gives us peace and satisfaction, the later renders us eternal peace and salvation. Now I see that I am lecturing Indian philosophy, rather than telling you that you should not be anxious, that I don’t want to strain your life or that of others, but trying to cheer you up in Chemnitz or in Dresden. Hopefully this letter will reach you all four in

Chemnitz, I would have liked to send presents also, but my purse is empty. ... (and so on, and so on) My dear Mother, don’t forget your Max” ***** By now, we know well that Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not intend to learn the Sanskrit language in Paris as he learnt his vernacular, Greek and Latin. And we know that he has not even acquired the ability beyond recognizing the Sanskrit letters, though unable to pronounce any words. For that, he needed to hear the sound of the language. He knows the significance of the sound of a language. We remember, he wrote to his mother: “At the same time one

listens to spoken French for that I almost don’t get an opportunity, so that, up till now, I have learnt to read the menu-card only”. We know also that none of the teachers and their predecessors claiming to know the Sanskrit language did never hear the sound of the language. In April 1845, in Paris, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is not yet 21 and half years old. He has begun to sell himself as a Sanskrit scholar from Germany. He knows by now that there is no risk. There is none around him, in Paris, in France, in Europe, who knows the Sanskrit language, not to talk about Sanskrit scholars. A few might have

believed to know about Sanskrit literature, but even they were to scrutinise their sources meticulously. But how could they have done this exercise? Thanks to “Humboldt”, who was then rather accidently in Paris, Friedrich Maximilian Müller gets access to the handwritten manuscripts in Sanskritletters in the Royal Library in Paris. Exactly this has been handed-down. Without this coincidence, he most probably would have totally stranded. In all respects. We apologise to have stumbled again. We take a tiny break to add information. *****

Friedrich Maximilian Müller, Max Müller and Georgina Max Müller did always mention “Humboldt” only. Now, there had been two celebrated “Humboldts”, two brothers: Wilhelm von Humboldt and Alexander von Humboldt. Whom did they mean? We do not know exactly. Therefore, we introduce both of them. Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767 – 1835) was two years senior to Alexander von Humboldt. He has a place in the gallery of the “Indologists”. He studied law, philosophy and archaeology at Gottingen and Jena. So it is said. The documents show, however, he never acquired any university degree. In 1789, he left his

university studies. We find him again in 1797 in Paris. He stayed there for a few years. At the age of 35, 1802, he was appointed ambassador of Prussia in Rome. Thereafter, he became Councillor of State and public Instruction. On his advice, Royal Frederick William University at Berlin was founded in 1810. He, however, left Berlin as Ambassador of Prussia first in Austria and then in Britain. He retired in 1819. He studied, so it is said, the Sanskrit language with Franz Bopp in London. This could have happened after 1816 only. He was then at least 50 years old. For how long and from whom he “studied” (learnt) the

Sanskrit language, it is not handeddown. We know, however, there was none in London teaching the Sanskrit language andFranz Bopp did not know the Sanskrit language. We refer to the Chapters 5 and Seven. As the Prussian Minister of Education, he installed Franz Bopp as Professor of Sanskrit in 1825, though Franz Bopp did not bring the stipulated qualifications. We recall, Franz Bopp failed twice in Aschaffenburg to acquire his Doctor Degree in philosophy. He did not study at any other university. Wilhelm von Humboldt wrote an essay entitled “On an episode of the Mahabharata known under the name of Bhagabatgita” for the

Royal Prussian, also in 1825. He was then 58 years old. He would have suited well to the references of the “Müller clan”. Nevertheless, he could not have been. This Humboldt expired in 1835 when Friedrich Maximilian was 12 years old. Alexander von Humboldt (1769 – 1859) is not placed in the gallery of the “Indologists”. He was born in 1769 and enrolled at the University of Göttingen in 1789. He studied commerce and foreign languages at Hamburg, geology at the Bergakademie in Freiberg, anatomy at Jena. So it is said. Like his elder brother, he also did not take any degree from any university. He was

considered to be a “do- nothing”. He suffered from inferiority complex because of his elder brother. He was very good-looking. His family perceived him as “good for nothing”. So it is said. He never married. In 1792, he was appointed as an assessor of mines in Berlin. How? Well! Alexander von Humboldt was penchant for adventurous travels. He got the material resources only after the death of his rich mother in 1796. So it is said. With his French intimate friend, Aimé Jacques Alexandre Bonpland (1773 – 1858) he was adventuring around between Paris and Madrid to obtain travel opportunities as “travellers on

duty”. So it is said as well. Sheer accidently the King of Spain offered these two adventurers grand opportunities of generous sailings to his colonies in “South America”. Nothing has been said yet on the specific terms and conditions of the generous offer King of Spain. This has remained a non −question. We raise this question. What did these two adventurers, Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé Jacques Alexandre Bonpland deliver to the Kingdom of Spain as returns for the King’s “generosity”? To cut this actually long story short and to get back to our context, these two intimate friends scouted extensively in

the inner corners of Spanish “colonies” from 1799 to 1804. In 1808, Alexander von Humboldt settled down in Paris and started evaluating the materials brought from the Spanish “colonies” - together with his new intimate friend Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac; (1778 – 1850). In 1827, he settled down in Berlin. He was never connected with anything like “Indology” and “Sanskrit”. We are fascinated by identifying similarities in family, in social background, in early life, in personality structures and educational background of these later celebrities. We are thus tempted to add a little more before we close this break. Humboldts were born

in Berlin. Their father, Alexander Georg von Humboldt, was a soldier. He married a rich widow, Baroness von Hollwede. ***** We remember, the Briton Alexander Hamilton was asked by the French Louis Mathieu Langlès to prepare a catalogue of those manuscripts kept in Paris. This was in 1803. He did prepare a catalogue. No one could judge the exactness or the quality of this catalogue. We however know about Alexander Hamilton’s rudimentary knowledge of Sanskrit. Of all persons who claimed to have known Sanskrit and taught his

Sanskrit, he was so far the only one, who had heard the sound of this language in Kolkata. Friedrich Maximilian Müller could not have any other option than to rely on this catalogue about those handwritten manuscripts in Paris. We recall also that all Sanskrit scholars in the gallery of Demigods exercised in Paris with these handwritten manuscripts in original Sanskrit-letters. Some of them claimed to have learnt the language all by themselves, some to prepare their own archive. They all confessed to have copied these handwritten manuscripts also. Presently we see, Friedrich Maximilian

Müller banks his future in copying these handwritten manuscripts only. Obviously, no one ever bothered about the relevance and about the coherence of these manuscripts. We feel, we need a word of clarification regarding these handwritten manuscripts and copying them. Colonial ruffians who did not know what they were robbing robbed these handwritten manuscripts. They did not know to discriminate the Indian languages. These booties ultimately reached the libraries. The librarians did not know the languages. They did not know the letters. They could at best discriminate and sort these handwritten manuscripts according to the

“characters” of the letters, and/or by eventual remarks made by the robbers on the covers. But how to copy these handwritten manuscripts? Every character, every word, every line, every sentence, every page is unique. In a completely unknown language. How to copy them? There is no other way than to draw carefully and meticulously every character, every word, every line, every sentence, every unique page, page for page. How much time is needed to draw a page exactly? Are we committing a mistake in our apprehensions? *****

We get back to Max Müller, to “My Autobiography”. We keep all reports, all lectures, all introduction of “celebrated persons”, all bluffs aside and focus only on his “work” and on his working condition. We read on page 162: “I began my work, however, at once, and on the third day after my arrival I was at the Bibliothèque Royal armed with a letter of introduction from Humboldt, and the very next day was already at work collating the MSS of the Kathaka Upanishad.” We let “a letter of introduction from Humboldt” be as it is. We also let “Kathaka Upanishad” be, although it is beyond our imagination how anybody

could identify it without knowing the Sanskrit language. But we cannot let the term “collating” go. At best Friedrich Maximilian Müller was “copying”, i.e. drawing Sanskrit alphabets and words on paper in his own fashion. What was there to collate? At best he was comparing his own drawings with the original! Why this camouflage? On page 167 ff, “My Autobiography” we read (highlighted by us): “... through the whole of my life I never borrowed from my friends, or in fact from anybody, though I was forced sometimes when very hard up for ready money ... to apply to some friend for a temporary advance. ... Relations who

could have helped me I had none, and nothing remained to me but to work for others. Indeed my want of money soon began to cause me very serious anxiety in Paris. Little as I spent, my funds became lower and lower. I did not, like many others scholars (He is selling himself as a scholar!) receive help from my Government (he did receive a scholarship for poor students from his Government and later he tried his best to get a scholarship for poor scholars from the same Government), I had mapped out my course for myself, and instead of taking to teaching on leaving the University (for teaching at universities degrees are required!), had settled to come to Paris and continue my Sanskrit

studies (studies?), and it was in my own hands whether I should swim or sink. It was, indeed, a hard struggle, far harder than those who have known me in later life would believe. All I could do to earn a little money was to copy and collate (!) MSS for other people. I might indeed have given private lessons (on what?), but I have always had a strong objection to that form of drudgery, and would rather sit up a whole night copying than give an hour to my pupils. My plan was as follows: to sit up the whole of one night, to take about three hours’ rest the next night, but without undressing, and then to take a good night’s rest the third night, and start over again.”

Hereafter Max Müller tells us fantastic stories meeting many celebrated French personalities and a lot on music and art. We cannot but smile knowing about his more than poor French. These myths continue up to the page 174. Then we read on pages 174/175: “So I stuck to it went on copying and collating my Sanskrit MSS., always trusting that a publisher would turn up at a proper time (Max Müller was 75 years old when he wrote these lines. Obviously, he did know that plagiarism was plagiarism also in the 19th century. Moreover, he was robbing the looted MSS from the libraries, isn’t it? Copying

Manuscripts and publishing? He had more surprises for us!). I had, of course, to do all the drudgery for myself, and I soon found out that it was not in human nature, at least not in my nature, to copy from a Sanskrit MS. even for three or four hours without mistakes (Sanskrit letters in handwritings! We remember, had had to draw every word, every line. How do you make mistakes in drawings, if you draw?). To my great disappointment I found mistakes whenever (Whenever? Does it mean a check up now and then only?) I collated my copy with the original (It is not collating; it is a simple check up, it is comparing, isn’t it?). I found that

like the copyists of classical MSS. (How did he know the work of the copyists of classical MSS.?), my eye had wondered from one line to another where the same word occurred, that I had left out a word when the next word ended with the same termination, nay that I had even left out whole lines. Hence I had either to collate my own copy, which was very tedious (Was that all? What happened “whenever” he had left out a line? Did he take a new piece of paper and repeated that exercise?) or invent some new process. This new process I discovered by using transparent paper, and thus tracing every letter (Very intelligent indeed! This frank

confession has nothing to do with a Freudian slip. Sigmund Freud was yet to come.). I had some excellent papier vègètal made for me (how?), and instead of copying, traced the whole Sanskrit MS. This had the great advantage that nothing could be left out, and that when the original was smudged and doubtful I could carefully trace whatever was clear and visible through the transparent paper. At first I confess my work was slow, but soon it went as rapidly as copying, and it was even less fatiguing to the eyes than the constant looking from the MS. to the copy, and from the copy to the manuscript. But the most important

advantage was, that I could thus feel quite certain that nothing was left out, so that even now, after more than fifty years, these tracings are as useful to me as the MS. to me. There was room left between the lines or on the margin to note the various readings of other MSS.; in fact my materials grew both in extent and in value. Still there remained the question of a publisher. To print Rig-veda (How could he identify the coherence of the MSS.? And how did he know that he was copying Rig-Veda?) in six volumes quarto of about a thousand pages each (Friedrich Maximilian Müller stayed in Paris, all in all, about

for 450 days only!), and to provide the editor with a living wage during the many years he would have to devote to his task, required a large capital. I do not know exactly how much, but what I do know is that, when a second edition of the text of the Veda in four volumes was printed at the expense of the Maharajah of Vizianagram, it cost that generous and patriotic prince four thousand pounds, though I then gave my work gratuitously. While I was working at the bibliothèque Royale, Humboldt had used his powerful influence with the king of Prussia, Frederick William IV, to help me in publishing my edition of

the Rig-veda in Germany. Nothing, however, came of that plan; it proved too costly for any private publisher, even with royal assistance. Then came a vague offer from St. Petersburg, Boethlingk, the great Sanskrit scholar, as a member of the Imperial Russian Academy, invited me to come to St. Petersburg and print the Veda there ...” (Boethlingk is Otto von Boethlingk (1815 – 1904). He learnt Sanskrit from Franz Bopp in Berlin and from August Wilhelm von Schlegel in Bonn. We remember them. We have read these lines written by Max Müller more than once. We are left puzzled. When and

how Friedrich Maximilian Müller could have copied 6000 pages Sanskrit handwritings in Paris? And how could he judge that, what he was copying, without knowing the language, was Veda, or Rig-Veda? Apart from this, we have not forgotten that he had to earn his living there by selling his extra copies to orient-enthusiastic customers. Before we correlate these lines with the letters to his mother, we quote the last paragraph of this chapter by Max Müller titled “Paris”) “I am sorry to say that one result of my seeing so little of French life was that my French did not make such progress as I expected. Though I was

able to express myself tant bien que mal, I have always felt hampered in a long conversation. Of course, the French themselves have always been polite enough to say that they could not have detected that I was a German, but I knew better than that, and never have I, even in later years, gained a perfect conversational command of that difficult language.” ***** Georgina Max Müller presented in her book eight letters of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother from Paris. All letters presented by her are incomplete; some are wrongly dated. In this context we keep aside her false

translations, her editing, her other manipulations. We have read them carefully. We have received nine letters in handwriting from the Oxford-archive. We know nothing of graphology. Yet we note a lot of changes in the handwriting of Friedrich Maximilian Müller during his stay in Paris. These letters are clumsier and more difficult to decipher. It is as if, written in haste, written in a misbalanced state of mind. We have read them all. They carry different tracks of information, but none on his real work, on his time-budget, how he really survive physically and economically in Paris. There are many concocted

concocting extraordinary stories for his mother as if these were his own experience. And we have to ascertain divergences between information given by Max Müller in “My Autobiography” and information given by Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother. We have dealt with his first letter from Paris in details. His second letter is dated May 5, 1845 which he could send on May 9, after he recovers from severe tooth aches. It is also long as usual. It begins with: “My dear Mother, I have taken my seat today to write to you, is truly due to the fact that I need at least one person whom I can lament my miseries.”

He suffered from “terrible” tooth aches from 24th April to 5th May. Neighbours looked him after. But “no Mother to nurse, who could pestere. Oh my dear Mama, how often I thought of you.” It has cost him 10 Fr. He can take only soft food. He has started with oysters. (Oysters? Well, he is poverty-stricken, he is selective as well! We of course do not know about the price of Oysters in 1845. We are remembered of Leipzig, his beers and his cigars, his evenings in the “Burschenschaft”.) He has lost at least two weeks. He expresses thoroughly his distress in his style. The letter reaches his mother

delayed. To save postal charges he bundles letters to “Hagedorn” who then delivers to others. He appeals to his mother not to be angry with “Hagedorn” whose friend in Paris, Mr. Ledderhose, helps him out whenever the remittances for him come late. From whom he receives remittances we cannot discern from his letter. Then: “That I live most frugally you can well imagine, as it is my greatest concern to stay here as long as I can, where so much is available for my studies.” There is no other substantial information. There are lots of gossips, lots on Paris and lots of laments. No words on what he really does. “I think, I

have by now chattered enough my little Mama and try to reach my bed as it is a real relief if one can sleep again, go-- o —od night, keep always your health, don’t work much for my shirts and go better out for a walk. Adieu my dear little Mama, your Max kisses and embraces you.” His next letter is dated 12/6/1845: My dear Mother,

“Paris

As it is always a true festive day to me whenever I receive a letter from you in my loneliness, as well I make me the greatest pleasure, when I tell myself, now today you write a letter home. Sad to say that these festive days occur in my calendar rather

sparsely, which now appear to be very desolate and empty, as I seldom make an entry of a day, the date, even the month, even the watch of your poor Pariser, since it is under repair, and the most chaotic life, and it would be fatal if I should cope with it. So I have bought me a wristwatch which has not to be winded and I am up till now quite satisfied with it, i.e. the hours I count to the pages I have written, the lunch to the quite loud call of my stomach, the evening indicated by the sandman and when a month comes to the end, then my longing pound so laud that either I have to receive a letter from you or write myself a letter to you to become

quiet again. A day like that is also a leap day that is wasted, as it is unexpected and because I then do this and do that, go for a walk, poshly dine or drink une Dermitasse und un petit verre in Palais royal, read magazines and smoke a few cigars.” It continues in this confused and incoherent style for many pages. We try to pick up the pieces of information which are relevant to our question: what he really does in Paris in those days. “As far as my work is concerned, I am up in the clouds, but my head is swimming, my bowels are burning, when I figure out what it means to finish my work, although day for day

I do nothing else than copying. I am not sure whether I already wrote to you that I am preparing here an edition of the oldest Veda, collecting all MSS that are available. This happens to be oldest and most important book of India, eventually the oldest that exists at all. The commentary, written in Sanskrit, alone fills 4 volumes, consisting 1000 rites each, all these to be copied, these have to be compared with other handwrittens; and this is just the beginning. Well, I shall see what can be done, but health and money, ‘that is the question’. My teeth are quiet for some time, but I lost quite a few days once again.”

Well. We can comprehend that he is preparing duplicates of handwritten Sanskrit manuscripts. These duplicates are mingled with mistakes. Who will read these duplicates? We know for sure that Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not understand Sanskrit texts. Nor those other “Sanskrit-Demigods”. As simpleminded persons, we are unable to comprehend any other sensible purpose than fooling others as Friedrich von Schlegel did forty years earlier. We recall: Friedrich von Schlegel, 32 years old, wants to learn oriental languages and goes to Paris. Why in Paris? “... because the richest collections of

literature in oriental languages are stored there.” We remember also: “I am perfectly fine. Because I learnt much, very much. I have not only made progress in Persian, but I am also nearing my great objective, that I master Sanskrit. I will be able to read the Sakontala within four months in its original text, though I will presumably still need the translation. Enormous effort was required because of a great complication and I had to develop my own method of guessing (Divinierens); since I had to learn the elements without elementary books. I

was finally fortunate that an Englishman called Hamilton, the only one in Europe except for Wilkins who knows, and very thoroughly knows, could at least help me with advice.” Practicing this adventurous method of learning the Sanskrit language for just three months, on August 14, 1803, Friedrich von Schlegel lets his brother August Wilhelm know: “I worked through Sanskrit uninterruptedly and now I have achieved a sound fundament. I have by now at least a hand high Manuscripts lying which I copied. Now I am occupied in copying the

2nd encyclopaedia. Writing Sanskrit daily for 3–4 hours and another one or two hours to work through with Hamilton; and whenever in the evening I felt like it, I had still work for 2–3 hours.” Well, Friedrich von Schlegel made hand written copies of Sanskrit texts and worked them through with Alexander Hamilton who seemingly knew the characters better, to learn the language. We have documented that he did not learn the language by that method. Quite understandably. Friedrich Max Müller copies manuscripts not to learn that language.

But: “... day for day I do nothing else than copying. I am not sure whether I already wrote to you that I am preparing here an edition of the oldest Veda, collecting all MSS that are available. This happens to be oldest and most important Book of India, eventually the oldest that exists at all. The commentary, written in Sanskrit, alone fills 4 volumes, consisting 1000 rites each, all these to be copied, these have to be compared with other handwrittens; and this is just the beginning.” How can he prepare an edition of his drawings, how does he know that he is

duplicating “the oldest Veda” without knowing the language? We shall wait and see. Paris is a hot spot for orient fans. He looks out for fellow Germans, because he does not know any other contemporary European language. He tries also to send his letters through them to save postal charges. He is always short of money. He is also acquainted with one M. Guerardin, whose father is a dentist who treats him also free of charges. Then he tells her mother: “In recent days I came close to Burnouf. He introduced me to his family. I have visited him in his land house in Chatillon. He is a distinguished man having the noblest

character and vast knowledge. Thereby he leads a simple life, though he is very wealthy and is a big shot.” Then at the end of the letter: “Don’t also not forget the money order and write better to Hagedorn once again. While I was writing Mr. Ledderhose came and told me that he has written to Hagedorn asking him to send money for rent, etc. I sit here still without money. – Now adieu, my dear Mama, be embraced and kissed by your Max.” We refrain from comments. We rather refer to his next letter, no date, no mention of a month, a page only, sent along with 6 other letters to Leipzig,

Berlin and Dresden. One Mr. Goldsturm is his courier. It is okay with his health, but extremely anxious because “Hagedorn” has neither written nor sent the money order yet. He requests his mother to buy a new dressing gown for him and hand it over to “Hagedorn” before he travels to Paris. He works the whole day at home and therefore he receives visitors also at home. His old dressing gown is worn out. Greetings to Emilie, Auguste and all others. Next he writes in October. No date. We know nothing about what happened in these three months. We get some hints in this letter. This letter is also very long. We refer here only to the picked-up facts

and let the diction and style in the original be as it is. There is no change. He wishes his mother all the best to her 45th birthday. He is happy that she is fine in Chemnitz and has put on some weight, which is, he feels, good to face the eventual “seven meagre months”. Nothing has changed in his life in Paris excepting for that he has become accustomed to a bottle of red wine together with his lunch. It costs him daily around 2 fr. only. Lately he has received a letter from “Hagedorn” and a money order of 1000 Fr. together with a letter from her. His debts for last six months amounted to 750 Fr. So only 250 Fr. are left. For the whole year he needs around

“400-500 Rthl”. He is shifting his lodging once again. For theatre and other entertainments he does not spend money. Only once he was invited to the “theatre francais”. He saw “Rachel and Phidri von Racine”. A long report follows on the artist Rachel and on the piece. He has not learnt enough French. No opportunity. Presently he does not need new outfits. We try to link the scattered pieces of information to get approximately an idea of his life in Paris. It seems that “Hagedorn” had given up his flat. Friedrich Maximilian Müller had to shift. M. Ledderhose was lending him money on behalf of “Hagedorn” who

does not seem to be as wealthy as it was reported by Max Müller. However, Friedrich Maximilian Müller depended mainly on his support. His mother was also helping him financially. There is no mention of his income by selling copied MSS. to “orient fans in Paris”. He has started writing letters propagating his collection of Sanskrit texts. His scope is naturally limited only to German speaking personalities. As nobody in Europe knows the Sanskrit language, he can sell himself as if he was a Sanskrit scholar. It seems, he has learnt lessons from the German demigods of Sanskrit. From Paris he does not write so often to his mother. Next, he writes on his

birthday. He completes his 22nd years in age. From his letter, we get the special traits of his character clear and clearer. This letter is as usual a long and purposeful one. He writes more than ten pages (highlighted by us). “Paris, 23. December 1845, My dear Mother, You must have expected that the letter that I write today would reach you in Chemnitz already tomorrow, i.e. on the eve of Christmas. There had been quite a few reasons that kept me off to have sent the letter earlier as you can well imagine that I would have preferred to appear on Christmas eve to you rather only with my wishes in

writing. I have to narrate quite a lot on many issues that demanded so much of my time in these days and all these, as they are of great importance for me, I did not want to inform you before thing have been finally decided. My works are more or less, on the whole, known to you, but not that much with my plans, though they are tied up with my works as I am working on the same since months, and till now I was not able to write on something definitely, as also the printing of the Veda along with commentaries in Sanskrit because of its vast expansiveness and costs cannot be covered by a bookseller, so I had to, although it cannot be

printed before 2, 3 years, approach a few governments and academies to find out how such a large project could be materialized. In course of this I wrote to few friends in London and Petersburg to enquire, and I received also few satisfactory replies from both places. In London in particular Wilson, the father of the Sanskrit-literates, had shown to be willing, wanted to get the Oxford University to carry the costs, however under the condition that he became the publishing editor of the text of the Veda and also the publishing editor of the Sanskrit-commentaries, which is by the way the main work, and which consists of about 8000

pages, mentioning me and two other young Sanskritists. This was on the one hand quite well and honourable, but as those two colleagues left London, one of them for Petersburg and the other for Tübingen, I would have to move to London, and for that I don’t have the money. At the same time Hofr. Boehtlingk from Petersburg could get the academy to print the work, but also under the condition, that I collaborate and make a team with him and let him be the publishing editor. As the editing the text is of little significance in regard to scientific work, it was only worth the fame to be the first to publish, I replied him that I inclined

to accept the condition, but for the condition that I was to be offered either a travel scholarship to compensate my costs that occurred by copying the comprehensive commentaries and other sources, or that I should move to Petersburg and get an assignment on which I could save that much of money in the first years to cover the printing charges myself. I have not received a reply yet. At the same time I now also turned to Berlin, wrote to Humboldt and Bopp, sent a detailed prospectus on my work, in which I enquired whether there could somehow be found a substantial source to finance the printing of the Veda-

commentaries. Subsequently however Humboldt wrote me very soon an extremely friendly letter in which he however does not mention about a definite result, tells me however that he does not think it realisable in Prussia and advises me strongly to accept the offers from London or from Petersburg. Things had developed to this stage when I got an offer through Hase (conservateur à la biblioth. Royale) to go to London with the Bavarian Envoy Baron von Cetto as a tutor. Although this offer also came quite unexpectedly, I decided immediately to undertake everything to get the job and since 8 days I am discussing with

this gentleman who is now in Paris. Yes, all details were already discussed and I was ready to travel from here, as I talked to him finally today morning, however realized that this post for me was impossible, because he wanted to fix in writing the condition that I would not let the children alone even for an hour, never go out without them, in short, I was to live there as in a monastery. As much I took it as my duty, to undertake everything that was in my power to find a position where I could develop on my own, so much pressure I feel, especially lately, no more to be a burden for others, compelled to be supported by others,

so much I knew how persons close to me, feel for me would have considered such a post to be of advantage, yet such conditions were not only humiliating, but also do not make sense, that I told this to his excellence and took my leave. This matter specially has caused the delay writing to you, and though I wished the post so much, indeed I see now that it was good to have waited. In spite of many aversions I was ready to accept the post, it was lucrative, 3000 Fr. and everything free, and the stay in London was so necessary for my work but unrealizable otherwise, and then a secured, independent post that would have freed me from many

pressures, whereby instead of accepting your painstaking savings, my dear Mother, and I could have brought some joy and pleasure for you, but it was not realizable without destroying my present, my whole future, my whole work, and I hope that I must nor reproach myself as I also do not expect from others. I carry on my work till something definite comes out either from London or Petersburg and then decide and in case nothing satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation. That in the whole affair I thought little of myself you

can see in the fact that I was even ready to sacrifice of being together with Emilie and Hagedorn in Paris on that I am waiting for so long, that I was also ready to exile for 4 – 5 years without hoping to see you, my dear Mother, or to be able to see and talk to a friendly soul. These were difficult days that I lately lived and difficult nights I remained awake, whereby I had to control the notions and ambitions of my heart and soul, to do that appeared to me as my duty. And even now, although that I can freely breathe again, I feel the pressure, I feel that the life is hard. And why? All because of damn money, that thousand through away, that makes

thousand unhappy and none happy. ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’” We skip all parts of descriptions on moving from flat to flat, description of his second and third lodging, bed bugs, staircases, his sufferings, lamentations, gossips and his great need of money. His present lodging is simple, but not as simple as it would be in Quartier Latin. M. Ledderhose was helpful in all respects. Then: “I had to borrow again from him 20 Fr. and with the amount you have sent me I would be able to manage till February. … My birthday has

passed away quietly, Gathy came early and remained with me till late, and a bottle of wine … The old year has gone so fast as never and has shocked me fairly as I told myself that now you are 22 years old. As luck would have us, we keep good health and are thankful my dear Mother. Keep your health and even getting round and fat, that does not harm, you are Grandmama now. …My wish, that I bring to you for the New Year is a happy get together. Your Max” This letter dated “Paris, 23.December 1845” is significant to judge the developments of Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s character. We have read this

letter repeatedly. The endings of the letter do indicate that in material terms his life in Paris remain as precarious as ever. He has never referred to a sum he does earn selling his copied manuscripts to the rich orient-fans in Paris. We know that his mother is living on a meagre pension. Yet he does not hesitate to snatch out as much money as possible from her. He has always ruled out private lessons to earn some money to unburden his poor mother. His parasitic behaviour is obvious. We are so much reminded of William Jones, of his mother and of his sister. Taking his life up to his 22 years of age, we were always in doubt whether he

was able to differentiate between reality and the world of his fantasy or was he compelled to develop strategies to compensate his social deprivations, or he fell in love inventing his own virtual world. His letters to his mother have convinced us that it is useless to speculate. We have to call a spade a spade. Friedrich Maximilan Müller has evolved to an unscrupulous cheat and swindler. He does not spare even his mother although he feels like his mother’s pet. We cite examples as proofs of our assertion. Ø “I have to narrate quite a lot on many issues that demanded so much of my time in these days

and all these, as they are of great importance for me, I did not want to inform you before thing have been finally decided.” The Fact is that he never cared to inform her on any of his affairs not to talk of discussing any issue with her. Ø “My works are more or less, on the whole, known to you, but not that much with my plans, though they are tied up with my works (What are “my works”?) as I am working on the same since months, and till now I was not able to write on something definitely, as also the printing of the Veda along with commentaries in Sanskrit

because of its vast expansiveness and costs cannot be covered by a bookseller, so I had to, although it cannot be printed before 2, 3 years, approach a few governments and academies (a few governments und academies?) to find out how such a large project could be materialized.” Ø “In course of this I wrote to few friends few friends in London and Petersburg (few friends in London and Petersburg? This statement to his mother is a lie. He didn’t have opportunity to make a. friends and b. few friends in London and Petersburg) to enquire, and I received also few satisfactory

replies from both places.” Ø “In London in particular Wilson (Wilson read only English. Friedrich Maximilian Müller knew only German!), the father of the Sanskrit-literates (Wilson was never titled as the father of the Sanskrit-literates), had shown to be willing, wanted to get the Oxford University to carry the costs, however under the condition that he became the publishing editor of the text of the Veda and also the publishing editor of the Sanskritcommentaries, which is by the way the main work, and which consists about 8000 pages,

mentioning me and two other young Sanskritists. (We are not forgetful. Even Georgina Max Müller did not Mention Wilson in her chapter and that even in March 1845, in Bonn, we remember, he did not understand anything while at the dining table two English couples were conversing.)” Ø “At the same time Hofr. Boehtlingk from Petersburg (He was a German, born in Petersburg, educated in Germany, learnt Sanskrit from Bopp and Schlegel, took the Dutch citizenship and got an appointment in the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg when he was 27 years

old only. Do these hard facts tell a story? Boehtlingk has been mentioned by Georgina Max Müller) that could get the academy to print the work, but also under the condition, that I collaborate and make a team with him and let him be the publishing editor. As the editing the text is of little significance in regard to scientific work, it was only worth the fame to be the first to publish, I replied him that I inclined to accept the condition, bur for the condition that I was to be offered either a travel scholarship to compensate my costs that occurred by copying the

comprehensive commentaries and other sources, or that I should move to Petersburg and get an assignment on which I could save that much of money in the first years to cover the printing charges myself. I have not received a reply yet.” Ø We have not forgotten Max Müller: “My stay in Berlin is over; I have made many and influential friends there—Schelling, Rüickert, Humboldt, Bopp, Jacobi, Mendelssohn“. We let also the episodic story of his earning prospect be as it is told, but not the last part. “In spite of many aversions I was ready to

accept the post, it was lucrative, 3000 Fr. and everything free, and the stay in London was so necessary for my work but unrealizable otherwise, and then a secured, independent post that would have freed me from many pressures, whereby instead of accepting your painstaking savings, my dear Mother, and I could have brought some joy and pleasure for you, but it was not realizable without destroying my present, my whole future, my whole work, and I hope that I must nor reproach myself as I also do not expect from others. I carry on my work till something

definite comes out either from London or Petersburg and then decide and in case nothing satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation. (He has never hesitated to exploit her mother of her “painstaking savings” telling her stories on: “I carry on my work” not to destroy “my present, my whole future, my whole work”. The peak of his factitiousness is manifested in: “in case nothing satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or

most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation.” We are not forgetful. He prepared the ground of his swindle to his mother when in a letter he signed as Dr. Max Müller. Thoroughly calculated.) Ø The last part of the letter does not need any comment: “That in the whole affair I thought little of myself you can see in the fact that I was even ready to sacrifice of being together with Emilie and Hagedorn in Paris on that I am waiting for so long, that I was also ready to exile for 4 – 5 years without hoping to see you, my dear Mother, or to be able to see and talk a friendly soul. These

were difficult days that I lately lived and difficult nights I remained awake, whereby I had to control the notions and ambitions of my heart and soul, to do that appeared to me as my duty. And even now, although that I can freely breathe again, I feel the pressure, I feel that the life is hard. And why? All because of damn money, that thousand through away, that makes thousand unhappy and none happy. ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’” *****

We wonder that in this long letter there is no mention of Eugène Burnouf even once. Does it mean something? His next letter is dated (highlighted by us): “Paris 27. Febr. 46. Meine liebe Mutter, Above all things, what are you just doing? Are you again nice and cheerful, and did you really overcome your illness, of that you just make en passent rather harmless remarks? Hopefully this is the case and I need not be worried about you. To your consolation I also can tell you now that I was sick as well and as it seems, I also suffered from the same

distemper-virus as you did. I had namely caught a severe cold in January, and in the main by my nightly hunt after flies and bugs, I had to struggle so badly along rheumatic head and backbone aches for the whole of January that I ultimately became bedridden, and then after a few fever days I luckily recovered. The worst of this mishap is that I have lost at least four weeks of my work, as I was so weak that I did not even touch my pen. Please imagine now the armies of fleas in my bed whereby I sweated due to the fever and I can tell you that this could even bring any normal person to desperation. So, as I was up again,

I spoke words to the landlord, I told him that I will immediately leave the lodging, if he would not thoroughly renovate it. It was also done then. The wooden walls were removed, every parts have been washed with nitric acid, then painted, all over new wall papers, etc.. Unfortunately I had to live outside of my home in a hotel for four days, because it was not possible to stand the smell und also because the mattress had to be remanded and the bedstead was to be cleaned. But now I have got my peace and my lodging has become nice. The weather here like in autumn, no snow, no frost, however quietly sitting in the rooms needs lot of woods.

Fortunately I have an oven here that I got fixed, as a fireplace in the room is more a fun. The season of social events are going to be over soon. I have often made use of them as I can gradually make acquaintance on such occasions, one goes there at about nine and you come home at eleven if there is a meeting, otherwise at one in the night. You don’t have much fun there, no food as well. No cabaret, etc. Simply tea, caces and coloured water for which you don’t have to pay. Merrins (a neighbourhood family?) were very kind to me, Mrs. Merrin personally looked after me. I did not need a doctor, no nurse, none else to look

after, though on some days I had to fast and when I wanted to get something, I had to get up myself. Recently I came to know an Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore, with whom I fumblingly smattered in English and Bengali. With the later I did some exercise earlier, presently I am engaged to compose a Bengali grammar in French, though I have not found a publisher yet. As far as to my other plans are concerned, ... (We earnestly beg pardon, we must take a break here for two reasons: we are so much reminded of William Jones and we are intrigued by ‘I came to know an Indian’)

***** Whenever William Jones (as documented in our Chapter 7) came to know the name of a language, he claimed to have known that language. He also claimed to have written grammars of some of those languages. Friedrich Maximilian tops even himself when he claims that he is presently engaged composing a Bengali grammar in French, although he can only brokenly smatter in one language (French) and know absolutely nothing of the other language (Bengali). There is one more curious aspect relating to “Bengali”. Georgina Max Müller quoted from a diary of Friedrich Maximilian Müller, dated 28.

June 1844 on page 25 of her book: “At this time he began Bengali, ‘which may perhaps be useful to me later, and is now for comparison with the low Indian dialects.’” Why did he smatter brokenly in a language in Paris in 1845, which he already had learnt in Berlin in 1844? And, was he no more “day and night” busy copying handwritten MSS. in Sanskrit? Were there not thousands of pages to be copied? In a language, he never had an opportunity to learn? Friedrich Maximilian Müller is systematically learning and practicing to spread his wishful swindles to his mother. We recall the German proverb:

Kein Meister ist vom Himmel gefallen. No master has fallen from heaven. The prime reason of our taking a break is his reference to Dvarkanath Tagore. He is actually Darokanath Ţhakur (1794 –1846), we mentioned him earlier, a Brahmin from a small town in North- Bengal. Brahmins like the “Thakurs” are traditionally required for recitation of Vedic texts in all kinds of social ceremonies. They generally do not understand the meaning of the texts they recite. They can read, they can articulate, they can tell one about the function of the text in such ceremonies, thanks to the still prevailing oral tradition of keeping Vedic texts

undistorted. But they are unable to explain the meanings behind the texts. They acquire knowledge required in many walks of life. They are not wealthy. They are not poor. They are respected. But this “Thakur” family like many others had decided to market their “knowledge” to the British occupants, to serve the East India Company and thus becoming wealthy. It was unusual to the traditional Brahmin culture. The elder brother of Darokanath Ţhakur’s father came to property as a “zamindar” (land owner). The “zamindars” were appointed by the British “colonizers” as collectors of “taxes”. Yes, taxes. So it

has been characterized by modern “scholars” of all colours. We are simple-minded people. We call “these taxes” as brutal daylight robbery. These “zamindars” were mercenaries of British occupants. Darokanath’s father was a policeman in Kolkata. The “family” lived at their home of origin in a village. Darokanath too. He was brought to Kolkata in 1804 and admitted in the Sherbourne's School at Chitpur near Kolkata. When he was sixteen years old he took up a job in the “colonial” administration and became rich as Indian counterpart of “colonial” exploitation of Indian people and of people’s resources. There was no

branch of “business”, (coal mine, indigo, money-lending, opium, prostitution, urban real estate included), in which he was not engaged. How he became rich, we are presently not getting into. We simply ascertain that Darokanath was sixteen years old when he joined the East India Company and he became so important for the colonial “rulers” by 1841, i.e. in thirty-two years, and also so rich that he was invited to Great Britain in 1842. “The wonder that was” Darokanath Thakur, alias “Dvarkanath Tagore”. He sailed to Britain on his own large vessel to meet Queen Victoria of England. It is on record, when his ship

arrived at London in January 1842, Queen Victoria came with members of the British royalty, the Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel, the President of “BOARD OF CONTROL” of the East India Company Lord Edward Fitz Gerald and the Rothschild-clan at the gangway to receive him. The Rothschild-clan had its own “East India Company”. This clan got him invited to Paris also. He was by then that important personality. The French King Louise Phillipe came all the way to St Claud to receive him in Oct 1842. We referred to Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Chapter Seven. He collaborated with the “colonizers” and was mentor of

Darokanath Thakur. He was the first Indian to be received in Britain. He died in London and was prominently buried in Bristol in 1833. Darokanath Thakur as Dvarkanath Tagore revered the tomb of Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1842 on his first ceremonial visit of Britain. Modern historians celebrate Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Darokanath Thakur as pioneer “reformers of modern India”. In 1842 Darokanath Thakur was 48 years old. By 1842 the structure of sustained exploitation of Indian people and Indian resources was firmly established. Mainly Bengali “Pandits” and personalities like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Darokanath Thakur actively

collaborated with the British occupants to establish this structure of sustained exploitation of Indian people. They were just the “peaks” of the “Bengali Mafia” who were richly rewarded for this service. We leave it at that though there is need to go deep into this history. ***** In our context, we took a break while reading a letter of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother. The life of Darokanath Thakur becomes significant for another reason. He makes a second trip to Europe in 1845 reaching London on June 21 after visiting Boudreaux and spending ten days in Paris. He dies in London on August 1,

1846 and on August 5, he was buried at Kensal Green in London. There is nothing on his minutely kept personal records indicating that he ever met Friedrich Maximilian Müller. We stumbled naturally, when we read in his letter to his mother on February 27, 1846: “Recently I came to know an Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore, with whom I fumblingly smattered in English and Bengali. With the later I did some exercise earlier, presently I am engaged to compose a Bengali grammar in French, though I have not found a publisher yet. As far as to my other plans are concerned, ...

Darokanath Thakur belonged to another world than that of Friedrich Maximilian Müller, whose life has always been poverty-stricken, depressed, and sickly; a precarious life. Moreover, these two persons could not have “fumblingly smattered in English and Bengali”, because of the simple fact that Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not have an opportunity to learn English or Bengali. This lie in a private letter to his mother could be discarded as a folly of a young man of 22 years who had never seen days of success or delight. For two reasons we are unable to neglect this audacious lie in our context. This faked story has been spread by

Georgina Max Müller and by Max Müller in an elaborated manner in printed books and it has not been corrected yet. This is one. The second aspect is more significant. The pattern of spreading fake incidents and stories is exemplified here, not only in the case of Friedrich Maximilian Müller, but in general in Autobiographies and Biographies in the prevalent “the wonder that is” this prevailing modern culture of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Take many names of celebrities of all branches and relate your name to them, thus become one of the celebrities of your time. Georgina Max Müller started her

chapter III, as reported: “1845 -1846, Paris. Lonely, struggling life. Gathy, Burnouf. Rigveda. Rachel. Dvarkanath Tagore. Boehtlingk.” We are in 1846. Following these sub −headings, she wrote without indicating a source on page 38 (highlighted by us): “One most interesting acquaintance Max Müller made in Paris, Dvarkanath Tagore, a rich Hindoo, who, though no student of ancient Sanskrit himself, took a lively interest in the young scholar (the young scholar?) presented to him by Burnouf at the Institut de France (Why should

Dvarkanath Tagore visit Eugène Burnouf? On minute records kept by Dvarkanath Tagore there is no mention of his meeting Eugène Burnouf.). He invited Max Müller to his house, and they spent many an hour together talking or enjoying music, for the Hindoo was a good musician, had a fine voice, and had been fairly well taught. He liked Max Müller to accompany him when singing either Italian or French music. After a time he was persuaded to sing Persian and real Indian music, and when his hearer confessed that he saw no beauty in it, neither melody, rhythm, nor harmony, his Indian friend lectured him on the prejudices of

Western nations, who turn away from all that is strange and unpleasing to them. Max pacified him by assuring him that he knew that India possessed a remarkable science of music founded on mathematics. He was present at the great party given by Dvarkanath Tagore to Louis Philippe, when the room was hung with Indian shawls, afterwards distributed among the most distinguished guests. It was at this time also that Max Müller saw a good deal of Baron d'Eckstein, who employed him frequently in copying MSS. for him. All this while Max Müller was working hard in preparing a correct text of the

Hymns of the Rig-veda, together with a perfect text of Sayana's Commentary, and the work was so far advanced that the question of a publisher had to be considered. It required a large capital to print and publish a work of six thousand pages quarto, and at the same time pay the editor enough to live on. The idea of publication by a publisher at Konigsberg, with the help of subscriptions, which is mentioned in the letters to his mother, and for which a prospectus was actually printed and circulated from London, was abandoned, when in the spring of 1847 the East India Company undertook the task. The following

letter to his mother gives an account of his plans and prospects to the close of 1845 '— To his Mother. Translation. Paris, Dec. 23, 1845.” In the version of Georgina Max Müller all these happened in 1845: “One most interesting acquaintance Max Müller made in Paris, Dvarkanath Tagore, ...”. Max Müller did not mention Dvarkanath Tagore in the Chapter “Paris” of his “My Autobiography” at all. Does it mean anything? As mentioned in earlier chapters, Longmans, Green, and co, London and Bombay has published two volumes: AULD LANG SYNE by The right Hon. Professor F. Max Müller, Author of “The

science of Language” Etc. in 1899, one year prior to his death. In the second volume, we find on page 5 a subheading, Dvarkanath Tagore. We read a remarkable story by Max Müller (Highlighted by us): “Indians did not travel so freely fifty years ago as they do now. The crossing of the black water and all its consequences had not then lost its terrors. When, therefore, in the year 1844, a real Hindu made his appearance in Paris, his visit created a great sensation, and filled me with a strong desire to make his acquaintance. He was a handsome man, and, as he took the best suite of

apartments in one of the best hotels in Paris, he naturally roused considerable curiosity. I was then attending Professor Burnouf`s lectures at the College de France, and, as the Indian visitor had brought letters of introduction to that great French savant, I too was introduced to the Indian stranger, and soon came to know him well. He was the representative of one of the greatest and richest families in India, Dvarkanath Tagore, the father of the Maharshi Debendranath Tagore, who is still alive, and the grandfather of Satyendranath Tagore the first successful native candidate for the Indian Civil Service, whom I

knew as a young student in England, and who now, after serving his country and his Empress with great distinction for many years, has retired from the service (This one paragraph, especially the last part, reveals his moral horizon. We have already introduced Dvarkanath Tagore. Debendranath Tagore had eleven children. One of them was Rabindranath Tagore.). Dvarkanath Tagore was not a Sanskrit scholar, but he was not unacquainted with Sanskrit literature. The first time I saw him was at the Institut de France, when Burnouf presented him with a copy of

his splendid edition of the BhagavatPurana. On one side was the Sanskrit text, on the other the French translation and it was curious to see the Indian placing his delicate brown fingers on the white page with the French translation, and saying with a sigh, “Oh, if I could read that!” One would have expected that his wish would have been to understand the ancient language of his own country; but no, he pined for a better knowledge of French. (Dvarkanath Tagore never learnt French). He was not an antiquarian, nor a student of his own religion or the language of his own sacred books.

But when he was told by Burnouf what my plans were, and now I had actually copied and collated the MSS. of the Veda at Paris (Sorry. In 1844, Friedrich Maximilian was not in Paris), he took a lively interest in me. He invited me, and I often spent the mornings with him, talking about India and Indian customs. Strange to say, he was devotedly fond of music, and had acquired a taste for Italian and French music. What he liked was to have me to accompany him on the pianoforte, and I soon found that he had not only a good voice, but had been taught fairly well. So we got on very well together. After complementing him on his taste for

Italian music, I ask him one morning to give me a specimen of real Indian music. He sang first of all what is called Indian, but is really Persian music, without any style or character. That was not what I wanted, and I asked whether he did not know some pieces of real Indian music. He smiled and tuned away. ‘You would not appreciate it,’ he said; but, as I asked him again and again, he sat down to the pianoforte, and, after striking a few notes, began to play and sing. I confess I was somewhat taken aback. I could discern neither melody, nor rhythm, nor harmony in what he sang; but, when I told him so, he shook his

head and said: ‘You are all alike; if anything seems strange to you and does not please you at once, you turn away. When I first heard Italian music, it was no music to me at all; but I went on and on, till I began to like it, or what you call understand it. It is the same with everything else. You say our religion is no religion, our poetry no poetry, our philosophy no philosophy. We try to understand and appreciate whatever Europe has produced, but do not imagine that therefore we despise what India has produced. If you studied our music as we do yours, you would that there is melody, rhythm, and harmony in

it, quite as much as in yours. And if you would study our poetry, our religion, and our philosophy, you would find that we are not you call heathens or miscreants, but know as much of the Unknowable as you do, and have seen perhaps even deeper into than you have!’ He was not far wrong.” We apologize mentioning again that we are simple-minded persons. We confess, we have not come across such audacious rubbish as yet. By the way, there is no record that Dvarkanath Tagore had ever time and interest for literature, arts, music and gossips. We close this remarkable episode with our simple

assertion that these two persons had never met each other. Though Max Müller continued narrating his story meeting Dvarkanath Tagore from page 5 to page 14, we are remembered of a German proverb: “Lügen haben kurze Beine”. In English it could be: “A lie has no legs”. We are convinced that this proverb do not fit in “the wonder that” is the prevalent culture. In this culture are the “Lies with long Legs”. It is just not true that “Lies don’t travel far”. In this culture lies do travel very far. In our case, a large amount of lies have travelled for more than 110 years having done a lot of damages. We reconcile with an English

proverb: “A lie never lived to be old”. We better return to Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s letter to his mother dated “Paris 27. Febr. 46“ (Highlighted by us). “Recently I came to know an Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore, with whom I fumblingly smattered in English and Bengali. With the later I did some exercise earlier, presently I am engaged to compose a Bengali grammar in French, though I have not found a publisher yet. As far as to my other plans are concerned, all those are more or less complete. There are not enough funds in Berlin and in London, and I received an

extremely friendly letter from Bopp a few days ago, that all he could implement in Berlin for me was acquiring funds to publish the vast commentary only. At the same time a letter came from Boehtlingk from Petersburg asking for a definite recommendation for a decision of the academy, which is assured, but it has to be made official. Together with Boehtlingk I shall find there the funds to get the text and the commentary printed, so he writes to me, if I agreed to accept a post of a House-tutor to begin with, he has already found a good post for me, soon there would be an appointment (eine Kronstelle) for me in the academy also. In addition

the academy has also acquired Handwrittens from India for this purpose; briefly all of it was such, that, in spite of a few clauses, I have accepted. I find in Petersburg 6 “Sanskritaner”, I already know two of them, who write to me, they enjoy a pleasant and lively scientific life there. I have asked (as one cannot trust the Russian anyway) for an attested copy of the Decree (Decrets) of the academy, without such a document I shall not go there. For how long I stay in Paris, I don’t know (Has he completed “his work” in Paris?). Hagedorn and Emilie, who have written very friendly, do not announce their arrival to Paris. And

after I read in the “Allgm. Zeitg” that the “Herzogin Mutter” has expired, I have lost all hope. So I shall write to Emilie these days. First and foremost I would like to know, how it is placed with money. I have not received any through Eisenstück, which means he has not yet written to me. And I don’t know exactly how much money for me is left. If it works out with Petersburg, I would not need to sponge money off from any person, neither from Baroness von Simolin, nor Emilie and Hagedorn. What is more, if I returned to Berlin, as Bopp asked me quite friendly, I would as “Privatdozent” borrow a few hundred thalers from someone for the first

years, which I should be able to arrange. (We apologise for being tempted again to quote Max Müller from his “My Autobiography”, page 167: “But through my whole life I never borrowed from my friends, or in fact from anybody, ...”) For some time I must stay in Paris, especially because I have lost a month and more and how much London attracts me, I just cannot explain it to you – but it will not be possible. If it is fixed with Petersburg, then I shall however have to write to the Baroness for recommendations, as they work a lot in the foreign. I have to wait till then. Of your coming to Paris, my dear Mother, I really started believing in

that, I cannot even think of that now, as I have given up all hopes in regard to Emilie and Hagedorn. Regarding the money affairs of Hagedorn, he has now sent a pay-order in favour of Ledderhose, who had advanced 3000 fr. on his behalf. He writes to me that he has asked Ledderhose to lend me 200 fr., but I have not talked to him as yet. If you come to know from Emilie that she won’t come to Paris, then don’t fail to send the rest of my money through Eisenstück. I have already borrowed 350 fr., i.e. with 200 fr. that I borrowed earlier from Ledderhose, I would need in all 600 to 700 fr. if that much of money you have. (4 rt. make around 15 fr.). ...

(After a lot of gossips and formalities over a page we read) I have recently sent a paper to Berlin for “Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik” that brought some of mine earlier. I did it just to dispatch some messages to Bopp and others without paying postal charges for them. The letters to Petersburg cost heavily. … (Then again formalities and greetings over half a page.) Burnouf I meet often, he is very cordial to me, his daughters are still too young. Lutterroths have only one daughter, indeed a beautiful daughter, but she is very pious, that I don’t favour, so you can only write to Julia that she could give me her little foster

−daughter per procuration. Only the heaven knows where I shall set up my hut und shall find for good a little woman, and that is my little kind Mother, whom I prefer than all others and to delight you is the greatest delight for your Max. (Instead of trying to interpret the last sentence, that would be beyond our competence -, we just reproduce the German original: ‘Weiß der Himmel, wo ich meine Hütte aufschlagen und eine kleine Frau werde ich wohl aber immer finden, und das ist meine kleine gute Mutter, die ich lieber habe, als alle andern, und der Freude zu machen die größte Freude ist für Deinen Max’)”

His next letter to his mother is written (highlighted by us): “Paris Ostern (Easter, may be, end of March) 46, Meine liebe Mutter, Today I have to write all sorts of things to you that I do not know yet where to begin with. So above all things, wish you a good day (Guten Tag)! How do you do? I am fine in Paris. ... (Half a page on Easter in Paris) I must first narrate my negotiations with Petersburg without remembering how much of it I already wrote to you. I received a letter from Petersburg (costs every time 5 fr.) writing that that the costs for printing are sanctioned and sending me a copy

of ‘proces verbal’ of the meeting of the academy stating: ‘M. Böhtling (academicien) publience con jointement avec M.Müller de Paris la Veda etc.‘ and also enquiring whether I was ready to accept a post in the Asiat. Musium of the academy requiring me to work for 5 days a week, from 12 – 2, having free lodging, free wood and 1200 fr. yearly salary. A decision was required whereby many things were to be considered. First of all I disliked ‘conjointment’ and I was afraid by other news from Petersburg that once I went there, ‘conjointment’ would mean something quite different. Secondly I had to consider that

recently Böhtling again fell out with Bopp and did not have a good name at all so that Burnouf and other Sanskritists whom I spoke to discouraged me. Regarding the post Böhtling (Otto von Boehtlingk is meant) wrote that the salary won’t be sufficient to live and I were to give private lessons in addition, so that a lot of time would be needed just to live on. And last not least it is Russia where one goes, if one has to go there, one has to sell oneself as dear as possible and I could foresee that a long stay would cut my return off to Germany. Once you are lucky to be born in Germany or in another civilized country one should throw it

away light-heartedly and a quiet and satisfactory life of a German professor weighs much more than a Russian ‘Staatsrath’ with all those ‘Ahnen-Orden’ and titles. In short, I wrote back that such a post I cannot accept and regarding printing the work I stand to my earlier conditions, the acceptance of those by the academy has to be announced to me personally and specifically. I am certain by now that this will not happen and it does not harm me as I received a letter from my book-seller who is setting up printing-press for Sanskrit and willing to print my complete work (Werk) and possibly pay me a honorarium so that I can

achieve the same result in Germany also. Thereupon I must tell you frankly that I long for peace and home and to go to such a country deserted by God and Man like Russia (he has just completed his twenty-two years of age) would have been a great sacrifice which must be brought for science and personal welfare, but not unnecessarily look for. If everything goes well as I hope, I shall be back to Berlin, take my ‘habilitation’ (what does he intend to make his mother believe?), my little mother will run the household and let me work without being annoyed by visitors and societies. So one passes

time and life and does thereby something decent, ‘tant mieux frü den alten Philister‘. Anyway, I see more and more, how necessary it is that I go to London also for some time and I am preparing this with all my efforts. The life there is even more expensive than in Paris, I shall need monthly 300 fr. As I can still dispose over 450 rt., I shall take this amount for this purpose or I shall borrow it from Hagedorn or Emilie. It is essentially needed and I think it will bring good interest. I study hard now English, converse daily one hour, which is also expensive and I think I could move in three months. For how long I shall stay in London is

naturally still uncertain, however I hope something will come up there to add by copying Sanskrit or by private lessons. I come back then ‚alors je lancerai mon prospectus et nous ouvrirons la souscription’. Possibly by next eastern I get my ‘habilitation’ in Berlin, these are my plans, a little adventurous but realisable. I expect news from Emilie and Hagedorn, as regard to Paris I have given them up. They could have informed me at least and I feel shy to write to them on this issue. If they just would lend me 1000 rt. for 10 years without interest, it would be of great help for me for the present and for them in future (like the Müller

grandmother) (das würde mir sehr behülflich sein für die Gegenwart und ihnen sicher für die Zukunft (wie die Müller Großmutter).). In any case I request you to send me 500 fr. to Paris through Eisenstück, who also has connections in London. – I cannot tell you much about my life here, it is unchanged ... (Trivial nice things and gossips follow thereafter over more than a page and then) regarding my clothes, they are just getting dissolved, therefore I do not go out much. I have to buy a few pants, most probably a coat also. The fish-cut is almost without lining. I need also a boot before I go to London and my dressing gown is worn out. I have to

see what can be done. The need of socks is also high. I have to buy some new socks. The shirts are manageable. Yet I needed some for London, but I know not yet how to manage. Anyway, I can manage the shirts, but socks are essential. This much on the small vagaries of human life. ... See that you nicely keep your health my dear Mother ... Greetings and wishes for all in Dessau and all others. Gathy sends you greetings, but none else think so often of you and with so much of ardent love and looking forward to come to you and to live a part of life as your Max.” We think, there is no need to analyse the letter further. We rather come to his last

letter from Paris (highlighted by us):

to

his

mother

”Paris 29. Mai 46, Meine liebe Mutter! Quite unexpectedly a good opportunity came to arrange that you also receive a small packet. As the person leaves already at 6 o’clock I ran about, like hounded, and have only a moment left to write a few fleeting words to you. To begin with, many, many thanks for the packet you have sent, I could not receive it as yet, because the man is not back so far. In case of money one always loses some, though not much. The shirts are coming just as required, as, prior to my trip, I have already spent a

terribly lot for coat, pants, hat, boots, etc.. I have received letters from Hagedorn clearing up all matters which you have mentioned. Hagedorn wrote to me weeks before that I could borrow 200 fr. from Ledderhose, however understood that he would not like me to borrow from Ledderhose more and that the understanding was, that I should pay him all amounts back as soon as I could. On my letter to Hagedorn requesting him to borrow me the amount for a longer period he wrote that he has donated the whole amount and advised Ledderhose that the recent 200 fr. was 100 fr. from him and the 100 fr. from Emilie. I

thanked him for all these, although I would have preferred not to have taken this loan. My prospects in London are good, everything is arranged; in all I am more hopeful than the poor Auguste, who distress me so much that I cannot express it at present. Hopefully she likes the sun umbrella. A kiss also for you, my little dear, and the other is for Krug who can save a lot of money for it. My exact departure I cannot determine, as I am awaiting a letter from Hagedorn regarding lodging which I expect by the 7th. Thereafter I start straight to London, from there Bar. v. Cetto has already advanced me thrice. Possibly I shall accept private

lessons and I shall also earn money through Sanskrit assignments. The prospectus of my work is going to be published in London in 5 languages. German, engl., French, Bengali and Sanskrit. It will be published by Samter in Königsberg. A few days back I received offers of support from the German Oriental Society, I am a member of this society, and from “societe asiat” in Paris. They were to contribute money for printing, as this is no more required, so I hope to get some amount from them. I have written to Humboldt also. Burnouf will also be writing to him and Dr. Goldstücker will handle him personally in Berlin. Possibly there

also something could be extorted (Vielleicht ist da auch noch etwas zu erpressen.). How long I shall stay in London I do not know. I am however very pleased going there and shall stay as long as I can, even if I don’t get a job. What so ever, I shall not stay there over a year away from you and seeing you, even if it is just for an hour. Whatever I think or do, I always think of you, my dear Mother, and it will be my highest happiness, if I could have fun with you once more. Well, only patience and courage is called for. Let there be hell-or-highwater, possibly we would find a more beautiful spot, where we can live together for the next 25 years rather

than in Petersburg. Look after yourself, my dear Mother, nurse Auguste, don’t save that much of your money please, I pray to you. From London I shall write to you in detail and better. Please convey my greetings to all and remain ever my dear, dear Mother. Your Max” ***** Paris must have also been a remarkable spot in those days for all sorts of corruptions. Alexander Hamilton lost his honesty and humbleness there and told “stories” in 1803. We remember coming across so many “stories” handed-down by celebrities claiming to have learnt the Sanskrit language in

remarkable manners. In this gallery of celebrities, we did not find a single one amongst them who was not a dazzler and not a swindler. We get back to our question: What does Friedrich Maximilian Müller do in Paris? We know, he decided already in Leipzig that there was no necessity for him to continue studying at any university. He succeeded plagiarizing “Hitopadesha”. Thereby he realized that all of his “predecessor scholars” bluffed claiming to have learnt the Sanskrit language. All of them tried to copy Sanskrit MSS. with different goals. None of them did it systematically. He realized also that he was not diligent

enough and he did not have time to learn the Sanskrit language. But he could steal the Sanskrit manuscripts from the libraries in a form that nobody will take notice of his theft. He could copy them and publish the same as his collection of Sanskrit literature. In addition, he instinctively knew that he would not be charged committing plagiarism. He did not possess that intellectual horizon to comprehend that the whole European Christian culture is founded on plagiarism and on fantabulous claims. Friedrich Maximilian Müller came to know as well that Paris was the hottest spot where any sellable story on orient could be marketed and that a rich

collection of oriental objects and antiques was stored in Paris. And Paris was far away from Leipzig and Berlin to be uncovered of his false claim being “Doktor Max Müller”. He might not have realized what it meant to copy handwritten Sanskrit MSS. in the beginning. We remember, he went to the library of University Berlin before attending to any lectures. We do not know whether he tried to copy in the library itself. But we know about his endeavours to get the MSS. at home. It was because he had to draw alphabets, words, sentences, page for page with pen and ink. We know also that ultimately he got permission to take the

manuscripts at home in December 1844. But by December he had made up his mind to go to Paris. He did not mind to neglect those few MSS. in Berlin. He was clever enough to make out that a whole of a MSS. was not needed as no one would be able to check whether his collections were complete or not. The quantity was that which mattered. And he had by then gained confidence in himself that he could narrate stories excellently. The only criterion was that the narrating stories had to be sellable. In Paris he started selling himself as a Sanskrit scholar with success to contemporary “scholars”. Max Müller did not write a chapter on Berlin. He

closed his chapter on Paris: “I am sorry to say that one result of my seeing so little of French life was that my French did not make such progress as I expected. Though I was able to express myself tant bien que mal, I have always felt hampered in a long conversation. Of course, the French themselves have always been polite enough to say that they could not have detected that I was a German, but I knew better than that, and never have I, even in later years, gained a perfect conversational command of that difficult language.”

CHAPTER 10

WHAT DID FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER REALLY DO IN PARIS AND WHY DOES HE GO TO LONDON? In June, 1846, Friedrich Maximilian Müller goes to London. He is now twenty-two and half years old. We shall try to find answers to our queries. Again we restrict our search for answers to the three primary sources:

1. Friedrich Maximilian’s letters to his mother from Paris and London, 2. “My Autobiography” and “Auld Lang Syne” by Max Müller, and 3. “THE LIFE AND LETTERS OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE FRIEDRICH MAX MÜLLER, EDITED BY HIS WIFE” by Georgina Max Müller.

We read in Chapter VI titled “Arrival in England” in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller. He wrote 29 pages in this chapter, pages 182 to 209. We read the beginning of the chapter: “While working in Paris I constantly felt the want of some essential MSS. which were at the Library of the East India Company in London, and my desire to visit England consequently grew stronger and stronger ; but I had not the wherewithal to pay for the journey, much less for a stay of even a fortnight in London. At last (June, 1846) I thought that I had scraped together enough to warrant my starting.”

We stumble again reading the very first half-sentence of the beginning. How could he have “felt the want of some essential MSS.”? We know, Friedrich Maximilian Müller is unable to read and understand the Sanskrit language. We are not putting that much of blame on Max Müller knowing the morality of “scholars” of his time. We just cannot comprehend that not a single biographer, not a single “scholar” up to our time has referred to this and to other deliberate lies. We skip that “constantly” and also his claim “which were at the Library of the East India Company in London”. We are reminded in this context that he did not even know the languages French and English. By no means could

Friedrich Maximilian Müller differentiate the pages of those manuscripts, not to speak of judging their significance. Does this pattern of behaviour and claims indicate something? What does it indicate? We won’t like to speculate. We only raise the questions. As in Berlin, in Paris too Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not try to learn the Sanskrit language, as documented. All he tried to do was to copy the pages of the “handwrittens” first by drawing and then later to copy by using “transparent paper, and thus tracing every letter”. Both of these working methods are just mechanical and dull exercises that do not enable

anybody to learn anything. What Friedrich Maximilian Müller factually did in Paris, we have ascertained from the available primary sources. He tiresomely copied handwritten Sanskrit texts for his personal collection. We have no evidence that he made extra-copies and sold them. He said, he also made copies for sale to orient enthusiasts. We won’t repeat our reservations to the whole issue of copying. We leave it after raising a few questions. How much time did he need to draw one page, later tracing one page? How many pages did he actually “copy”? We remember that he stayed in Paris for 15 months. During

his stay, he had lost about 3 months due to his diverse illnesses according to his own report. At best, he had 365 days in Paris at his disposal. In addition, Max Müller has let us know quite vividly in the chapter titled “Paris” (highlighted by us): “Twice a week I go to lectures at the College de France. It is some way off; but they are very good, and I pay nothing and I hear French spoken, for which otherwise I have hardly any opportunity.” “All I could do to earn a little money was to copy and collate MSS for other people. I might indeed have

given private lessons, but I have always had a strong objection to that form of drudgery, and would rather sit up a whole night copying than give an hour to my pupils. My plan was as follows: to sit up the whole of one night, to take about three hours’ rest the next night, but without undressing, and then to take a good night’s rest the third night, and start over again.” “So I stuck to it went on copying and collating my Sanskrit MSS., always trusting that a publisher would turn up at a proper time. I had, of course, to do all the drudgery for myself, and I soon found out that it was not in

human nature, at least not in my nature, to copy from a Sanskrit MS. even for three or four hours without mistakes. To my great disappointment I found mistakes whenever I collated my copy with the original. I found that like the copyists of classical MSS., my eye had wandered from one line to another where the same word occurred, that I had left out a word when the next word ended with the same termination, nay that I had even left out whole lines. Hence I had either to collate my own copy, which was very tedious or invent some new process. This new process I discovered by using transparent paper, and thus tracing every letter. I

had some excellent papier vègètal made for me, and instead of copying, traced the whole Sanskrit MS. This had the great advantage that nothing could be left out, and that when the original was smudged and doubtful I could carefully trace whatever was clear and visible through the transparent paper. At first I confess my work was slow, but soon it went as rapidly as copying, and it was even less fatiguing to the eyes than the constant looking from the MS. to the copy, and from the copy to the manuscript. But the most important advantage was, that I could thus feel quite certain that nothing was left out, so that even now, after more than

fifty years, these tracings are as useful to me as the MS. itself. There was room left between the lines or on the margin to note the various readings of other MSS.; in fact my materials grew both in extent and in value. Still there remained the question of a publisher. To print Rig-veda in six volumes quarto of about a thousand pages each, and to provide the editor with a living wage during the many years he would have to devote to his task, required a large capital. I do not know exactly how much, but what I do know is that, when a second edition of the text of the Veda in four volumes

was printed at the expense of the Maharajah of Vizianagram, it cost that generous and patriotic prince four thousand pounds, though I then gave my work gratuitously.” Moreover, Friedrich Maximilian Müller has let us know through his letters to his mother (highlighted by us): “As far as my work is concerned, I am up in the clouds, but my head is swimming, my bowels are burning, when I figure out what it means to finish my work, although day for day I do nothing else than copying. I am not sure whether I already wrote to you that I am preparing here an edition of the oldest Veda, collecting

all MSS that are available. This happens to be the oldest and most important Book of India, eventually the oldest that exists at all. The commentary, written in Sanskrit, alone fills 4 volumes, consisting 1000 rites each, all these to be copied, these have to be compared with other handwrittens; and this is just the beginning. Well, I shall see what can be done, but health and money, ‘that is the question’. My teeth are quiet for some time, but I lost quite a few days once again.” “I have to narrate quite a lot on many issues that demanded so much of my time in these days and all these, as

they are of great importance for me, I did not want to inform you before things have been finally decided. My works are more or less, on the whole, known to you, but not that much with my plans, though they are tied up with my works as I am working on the same since months, and till now I was not able to write on something definitely, as also the printing of the Veda along with commentaries in Sanskrit because of its vast expansiveness and costs cannot be covered by a bookseller, so I had to, although it cannot be printed before 2, 3 years, approach a few governments und academies to find out how such a large project could be

materialized. In course of this I wrote to few friends in London and Petersburg to enquire, and I received also few satisfactory replies from both places. In London in particular Wilson, the father of the Sanskritliterates, had shown to be willing, wanted to get the Oxford University to carry the costs, however under the condition that he became the publishing editor of the text of the Veda and also the publishing editor of the Sanskrit-commentaries, which is by the way the main work, and which consists about 8000 pages, mentioning me and two other young Sanskritists. This was on the one hand quite well and honourable, but

as those two colleagues left London, one of them for Petersburg and the other for Tübingen, I would have to move to London, and for that I don’t have the money. At the same time Hofr. Boehtlingk from Petersburg has written that could get the academy to print the work, but also under the condition, that I collaborate and make a team with him and let him be the publishing editor. As editing the text is of little significance in regard to scientific work, it was only worth the fame to be the first to publish, I replied him that I inclined to accept the condition, bur for the condition that I was to be offered either a travel scholarship to

compensate my costs that occurred by copying the comprehensive commentaries and other sources, or that I should move to Petersburg and get an assignment on which I could save that much of money in the first years to cover the printing charges myself. I have not received a reply yet. At the same time I now also turned to Berlin, wrote to Humboldt and Bopp, sent a detailed prospectus on my work, in which I enquired whether there could somehow be found a substantial source to finance the printing of the Vedacommentaries. Subsequently however Humboldt wrote me very soon an extremely friendly letter in which he

however does not mention about a definite result, however, tells me that he does not think it realisable in Prussia and advises me strongly to accept the offers from London or from Petersburg. Things had developed to this stage when I got an offer through Hase (conservateur à la biblioth. Royale) to go to London with the Bavarian Envoy, Baron von Cetto, as a tutor. Although this offer also came quite unexpectedly, I decided immediately to undertake everything to get the job and since 8 days I am discussing with this gentleman who is now in Paris. Yes, all details were already discussed and I was ready to travel from here, as I

talked to him finally today morning, however realized that this post for me was impossible, because he wanted to fix in writing the condition that I would not let the children alone even for an hour, never go out without them, in short, I was to live there as in a monastery. As much I took it as my duty, to undertake everything that was in my power to find a position where I could develop on my own, so much pressure I feel, especially lately, no more to be a burden for others, compelled to be supported by others, so much I knew how persons close to me, feel for me would have considered such a post to be of advantage, yet such conditions were

not only humiliating, but also do not make sense, that I told this to his excellence and took my leave. This matter specially has caused the delay writing to you, and though I wished the post so much, indeed I see now that it was good to have waited. In spite of many aversions I was ready to accept the post, it was lucrative, 3000 Fr. and everything free, and the stay in London was so necessary for my work but unrealizable otherwise, and then a secured, independent post that would have freed me from many pressures, whereby instead of accepting your painstaking savings, my dear Mother, and I could have brought some joy and pleasure for

you, but it was not realizable without destroying my present, my whole future, my whole work, and I hope that I must not reproach myself as I also do not expect from others. I carry on my work till something definite comes out either from London or Petersburg and then decide and in case nothing satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation. That in the whole affair I thought little of myself you can see in the fact that I was even ready to sacrifice of being together with Emilie and Hagedorn in Paris on that

I am waiting for so long, that I was also ready to exile for 4 – 5 years without hoping to see you, my dear Mother, or to be able to see and talk to a friendly soul. These were difficult days that I lately lived and difficult nights I remained awake, whereby I had to control the notions and ambitions of my heart and soul, to do what appeared to me as my duty. And even now, although that I can freely breathe again, I feel the pressure, I feel that the life is hard. And why? All because of damn money, that thousands thrown away, that makes thousands unhappy and none happy. ‘It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich

man to enter the kingdom of God.’” “In course of this I wrote to a few friends in London and Petersburg to enquire, and I received also few satisfactory replies from both places. In London in particular Wilson, the father of the Sanskrit-literates, had shown to be willing, wanted to get the Oxford University to carry the costs, however under the condition that he became the publishing editor of the text of the Veda and also the publishing editor of the Sanskritcommentaries, which is by the way the main work, and which consists of about 8000 pages, mentioning me and two other young Sanskritists. At the same time Hofr. Boehtlingk from

Petersburg wrote that he could get the academy to print the work, but also under the condition, that I collaborate and make a team with him and let him be the publishing editor. As editing the text is of little significance in regard to scientific work, it was only worth the fame to be the first to publish, I replied him that I inclined to accept the condition, but for the condition that I was to be offered either a travel scholarship to compensate my costs that occurred by copying the comprehensive commentaries and other sources, or that I should move to Petersburg and get an assignment on which I could save that much of money in the first

years to cover the printing charges myself. I have not received a reply yet. “In spite of many aversions I was ready to accept the post, it was lucrative, 3000 Fr. and everything free, and the stay in London was so necessary for my work but unrealizable otherwise, and then a secured, independent post that would have freed me from many pressures, whereby instead of accepting your painstaking savings, my dear Mother, and I could have brought some joy and pleasure for you, but it was not realizable without destroying my present, my whole

future, my whole work, and I hope that I must nor reproach myself as I also do not expect from others. I carry on my work till something definite comes out either from London or Petersburg and then decide and in case nothing satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation.” “I also suffered from the same distemper-virus as you did. I had namely caught a severe cold in January, and in the main by my nightly hunt after flies and bugs, I had so badly to struggle along

rheumatic head and backbone aches for the whole of January that I ultimately became bedridden, and then after a few fever days I luckily recovered. The worst of this mishap is that I have lost at least four weeks of my work, as I was so weak that I did not even touch my pen.” “Recently I came to know an Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore, with whom I fumblingly smattered in English and Bengali. With the latter I did some exercise earlier, presently I am engaged to compose a Bengali grammar in French, though I have not found a publisher yet. As far as my other plans are concerned, all

those are more or less complete. There are not enough funds in Berlin and in London, and I received an extremely friendly letter from Bopp a few days ago, that all he could implement in Berlin for me was acquiring funds to publish the vast commentary only.” “For some time I must stay in Paris, especially because I have lost a month and more and how much London attracts me, I just cannot explain it to you – but it will not be possible. If it is fixed with Petersburg, then I shall however have to write to the Baroness for recommendations, as they work a lot

in foreign lands. I have to wait till then.” “If everything goes well as I hope, I shall be back to Berlin, take my ‘habilitation’, my little mother will run the household and let me work without being annoyed by visitors and societies. So one passes time and life and does thereby something decent, ‘tant mieux fur den alten Philister‘. Anyway, I see more and more, how necessary it is that I go to London also for some time and I am preparing this with all my efforts. The life there is even more expensive than in Paris, I shall need monthly 300 fr. As I can still dispose over 450

rt., I shall take this amount for this purpose or I shall borrow it from Hagedorn or Emilie. It is essentially needed and I think it will bring good interest. I study hard now English, converse daily one hour, which is also expensive and I think I could move in three months. For how long I shall stay in London is naturally still uncertain, however I hope something will come up there to add by copying Sanskrit or by private lessons.” “I come back then‚ ‘alors je lancerai mon prospectus et nous ouvrirons la souscription’. Possibly by next easter I get my ‘habilitation’ in Berlin,

these are my plans, a little adventurous but realisable. I expect news from Emilie and Hagedorn, as regard to Paris I have given them up. They could have informed me at least and I feel shy to write to them on this issue. If they just would lend me 1000 rt. for 10 years without interest, it would be of great help for me for the present and for them in future (like the Müller grandmother). In any case I request you to send me 500 fr. to Paris through Eisenstück, who also has connections in London.” “My exact departure I cannot determine, as I am awaiting a letter from Hagedorn regarding lodging

which I expect by the 7th. Thereafter I start straight to London, from there Bar. v. Cetto has already advanced me thrice. Possibly I shall accept private lessons and I shall also earn money through Sanskrit assignments. The prospectus of my work is going to be published in London in 5 languages. German, engl., French, Bengali and Sanskrit. It will be published by Samter in Königsberg. A few days back I received offers of support from the German Oriental Society, I am a member of this society, and from “societe asiat” in Paris. They were to contribute money for printing, as this is no more required, so I hope to get some amount from them. I have

written to Humboldt also. Burnouf will also be writing to him and Dr. Goldstücker will handle him personally in Berlin. Possibly there also something could be extorted (Vielleicht ist da auch noch etwas zu erpressen.). How long I shall stay in London I do not know. I am however very pleased going there and shall stay as long as I can, even if I don’t get a job. What so ever, I shall not stay there over a year away from you and seeing you, even if it is just for an hour.” We recall, Max Müller closed his chapter on Paris with the lines “I am sorry to say that one result of my

seeing so little of French life was that my French did not make such progress as I expected. Though I was able to express myself tant bien que mal, I have always felt hampered in a long conversation. Of course, the French themselves have always been polite enough to say that they could not have detected that I was a German, but I knew better than that, and never have I, even in later years, gained a perfect conversational command of that difficult language.” Georgina Max Müller closed her chapter on Paris with the line: “He went for three weeks, and lived in England above fifty-four years.” No, he did not

go (to London) for three weeks. Max Müller told us that Friedrich Maximilian Müller had “scraped” together “much less for a stay of even a fortnight in London.”

In none of the primary sources we do find answers to our questions: What did Friedrich Maximilian Müller really do in Paris and why does he go to London? We are compelled again to put the bits of scattered facts together, evaluate and see what comes out. ***** For a while we leave aside the source “Georgina Max Müller”. According to our judgement, the source “Max Müller” is more reliable. And the letters of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother are more authentic. Therefore, we shall not deal with names like Archdeacon Hare and Chevalier Bunsen

immediately. They sound formidable, but they are just false statements like: “My stay in Berlin is over; have made many and influential friends there—Schelling, Rückert, Humboldt, Bopp, Jacobi, Mendelssohn. My views of life become clearer and more sensible, my inner life more active and more independent of outward circumstances. There was not much to be gained in knowledge in Berlin ; the learned men are too learned, too reserved, and do not attempt to gain any influence ; and even the treasures of the Library were long closed to me, till a word from

Humboldt put an end to the constant refusals of the librarian Pertz and the Minister.” For a while, we leave aside also the source “Max Müller” excepting the following episode. On page 162, “My Autobiography” he wrote: “Next came the great question, how to make the acquaintance of Burnouf. I did not know the world. I did not know whether I should write to him first, in what language, and to what address. I knew Burnouf from his books, and I felt a desperate respect for him. After a time Gathy discovered his address for me, and I summoned up my courage to call on

him. My French war very poor as yet, but I walked in and found a dear old gentleman in his robe de chamber, surrounded by his books and his children – four little daughters who were evidently helping him in collecting and alphabetically arranging a number of slips on which he had jotted down whatever had struck him as important in his reading during the day. He received me with great civility, such as I had not been accustomed to before. He spoke of some little book which I had published, and enquired warmly after my teachers in Germany, such as Brockhaus, Bopp, and Lassen. He told me I might attend his lectures in

the Collège de France, and he would always be most happy to give me advice and help.” If we buy this story then this meeting with Burnouf took place immediately after: “I began my work, however, at once, and on the third day after my arrival I was at the Bibliothèque Royale armed with a letter of introduction from Humboldt, and the very next day was already at work collating the MSS. of Kathaka Upanishad I had also to devote some hours daily to the study of French; ... Next came the great question, how to make the acquaintance ofBurnouf.” An episode like this would have been a

great event in the, rather so far, frustrating life of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. He would have immediately reported to his mother. But he wrote in his first letter only: “I have however not called on anybody excepting a young man belonging to Stuttgart who is engaged with Sanskrit, whom I have met in the course given by Burnouf”. There is no mention of that remarkable first experience meeting Eugène Burnouf in the letters to his mother. There is no mention that he started learning the Sanskrit language in Paris. In his letter dated Paris 12/6/1845 we read:

“In recent days I came close to Burnouf. He introduced me to his family. I have visited him in his land house in Chatillon. He is a distinguished man having the noblest character and vast knowledge. Thereby he leads a simple life, though he is very wealthy and is a big shot.” Before we leave the issue with Eugène Burnouf we must mention a few hard facts. Friedrich Maximilian Müller didn’t know French. Eugène Burnouf (1801 – 1852) was born and got his education in Paris. Antoine-Léonard de Chézy (1773 – 1832) was the only person in France who claimed to have taught the Sanskrit language in the

Collège de France since 1815. He learnt, this is his claim, the Sanskrit language without a teacher, without a grammar or a dictionary. Eugène Burnouf was 31 years old when Antoine-Léonard de Chézy expired. He could have learnt “Sanskrit” from Antoine-Léonard de Chézy only. However, Eugène Burnouf never claimed to have learnt the Sanskrit language. He claimed to be an expert in Old Persian and of the Avestan language. None of his works was translated in German. Friedrich Maximilian Müller could not have read and thus known “Burnouf from his books”. We leave it at that and discard the story told by

Friedrich Maximilian Müller in this regard. We discard also Franz Bopp and Christian Lassen of being his Sanskrit teachers. ***** In his letter to his mother dated “Paris, 23.December 1845” he introduces three names of established persons: “Wilson, the father of the Sanskrit-literates”, in London, Hofr. Boehtlingk from Petersburg” and Baron von Cetto from Bavaria.” “Wilson” was Horace Hayman Wilson (1786 -1860), based in Oxford as the first Boden-Professor for Sanskrit since 1832. We have dealt with his vita up to

1832 in our Chapter 7. We take liberty to look a little ahead referring that he will play an important role later in our search and documentation. Presently we only put on record that he did not have an opportunity to learn German. There was no need for him to get involved with the German language either. We also put on record that there is no mention of Horace Hayman Wilson in the chapter “Paris” by Max Müller in his “My Autobiography”. Does it indicate something? What does it indicate? “Boehtlingk” was Otto von Boehtlingk (1815 – 1904), a German indologist, who claimed to have learnt the Sanskrit language from Franz Bopp and August

Wilhelm von Schlegel. We know already these two Sanskrit teachers who had learnt Sanskrit all by themselves. Otto von Boehtlingk got an appointment in the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. We read on page 175, “My Autobiography”: “Then came a vague offer from St. Petersburg, Boehtlingk, the great Sanskrit scholar, as a member of the Imperial Russian Academy, invited me to come to St. Petersburg and print the Veda there, in collaboration with himself, and at the expense of the Academy.” To his mother Friedrich Maximilian Müller mentioned one Baron von Cetto.

Our search in the web-engines of internet did not produce a definite result that could back up the story told by him to his mother. We leave it at that now. He wrote also: “My works are more or less, on the whole, known to you, but not that much with my plans, though they are tied up with my works as I am working on the same since months, and till now I was not able to write on something definitely, as also the printing of the Veda along with commentaries in Sanskrit because of its vast expansiveness and costs cannot be covered by a bookseller, so I had to, although it cannot be printed before 2, 3 years, approach a

few governments und academies to find out how such a large project could be materialized. In course of this I wrote to few friends few friends in London and Petersburg.” We read in this letter also: “At the same time I now also turned to Berlin, wrote to Humboldt and Bopp, sent a detailed prospectus on my work, in which I enquired, whether there could somehow be found a substantial source to finance the printing of the Vedacommentaries.” Thereafter we read: “I carry on my work till something definite comes out either from London or Petersburg and then decide and in case nothing

satisfactory comes out I shall travel back to Germany next fall with Emilie and then to Berlin or most probably to Königsberg to do my habilitation.” We recall that palatable story in three different versions around “an Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore” as well. We refer to our last chapter. We mentioned also that there is no mention of this remarkable Indian, Dvarkanath Tagore, in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller. We are also reminded in this context of his stories: “presently I am engaged to compose a Bengali grammar in French, though I have not found a publisher yet.” And “What is more, if I returned to Berlin, as Bopp

asked me quite friendly, I would as “Privatdozent” borrow a few hundred thalers from someone for the first years, which I should be able to arrange.” We naturally put now the question, why did he tell stories to his mother having no factual base. Does it indicate something? What does it indicate? These are not just rhetoric questions. Before we get back to the beginning of the Chapter VI, “Arrival in England”, “My Autobiography”, page 182, by Max Müller we must put on record: 1. Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not add anything to his knowledge

until now, i.e. to his “Sanskrit” or to any other branch of knowledge that he had studied so far. 2. It is indiscernible how many pages of “handwrittens” he has copied, as drawings or “tracing” them and also the total number of pages of “handwrittens” that were kept in Paris. He has only mentioned 8000 pages relating to “Veda and commentaries to Veda” in original Sanskrit. 3. There are indications that he does not copy the “handwrittens” regularly and seriously. 4. He claims to have prepared a

detailed prospectus on his work to acquire funds for “the printing of the Veda-commentaries”. This prospectus is not handed-down. 5. For sure, he has acquired the ability selling himself as a “Sanskrit scholar” and telling fanciful stories. 6. Yet he runs away from Paris, as he did from Leipzig and from Berlin, to an uncertain stay in London. Why does he do it? No one tells us. We must try to put two-and-two together. 7. If he fails in London, so he wants to make us believe that he would

have an option to travel back to Berlin or to Königsberg to do his “habilitation”. Just like that. For a “habilitation”, one has to qualify oneself with prior academic degrees. That is all in information we can extract from the letters Friedrich Maximilian Müller wrote to his mother from Paris. We take liberty here to make a few remarks. Ø If we buy his claim preparing a detailed prospectus describing his collection of copied Sanskrit MSS., we would need exact and detailed descriptions how he could do it. How did he do it? He

has always been vague about his “work”. Ø He never cared to inform his mother or anybody else on any of his “work” affairs, not to talk of discussing any issue. Instead, we find examples like: “I see more and more, how necessary it is that I go to London also for some time and I am preparing this with all my efforts.” Ø He successfully sold himself as a Sanskrit scholar in Paris. His only difficulty was seemingly that he did not know French. Ø He

successfully

told

stories

relating him to renowned personalities and circulated them. The stories are eloquently narrated and so far accepted in “the wonder that is” this culture.

Max Müller did the same extensively in his autobiography and in his two volumes, titled “Auld Lang Syne”. We have read these volumes. He started at the age of 75 erecting his own monument as a “Scholar Extraordinary”. He connected himself with all celebrities whose name was known to him. When he circulated his stories, most of those celebrities were not alive. Where was a risk? Many auto-biographers did it and do it. On fakes, on false translations of Georgina Max Müller we have referred often. Friedrich Maximilian Müller did it also in the letters to his mother, may be, to relieve her mind from anxieties.

Therefore, we consider these white lies, these well-intentioned untruths as less vicious than those of “Max Müller” and those of Georgina Max Müller. He goes to London as his last gamble in his quest to find his “virgin soil to his plough”. We recall also what he wrote to his mother: “How long I shall stay in London I do not know. I am however very pleased going there and shall stay as long as I can, even if I don’t get a job.” Before we return to the beginning of the Chapter VI, Arrival in England, “My Autobiography”, page 182, we deal in the next chapter with “The ancient language Sanskrit. How does it travel

from Bharatavarsa to Europe?”

CHAPTER 11

THE ANCIENT LANGUAGE SANSKRIT HOW DOES IT TRAVEL FROM BHARATAVARSA TO EUROPE? We have all been allowed to know that metaphysical and philosophical literary works such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, and Brahmanas etc. are handed-down in a language called Sanskrit. These literary works are being learned, read and recited in “India”. These are imparted and taught orally

even nowadays. Eminent teachers of this vast knowledge know that the Vedas and some of these literary works are handeddown in the Vedic language. The homeland of this literature is Bharatavarsa. A country called “India” is not mentioned in this literature. For convenience, as mentioned earlier, we use the name “India” also for the vast area of Vedic culture. Both languages, the Vedic and the Sanskrit are considered as most developed and most complicatedly organized. There is no controversy on this. Again, for convenience sake we shall use the term “Sanskrit” for both the Vedic and the Sanskrit language. Even the dating acrobats of all countries agree

on the issue that “Sanskrit” even in written modus came into being earlier than the classical European languages. Nobody knows when Sanskrit was a spoken language. What is nowadays worldwide circulating as the Sanskrit language is also a written language brought into the open by so-called Indologists from Europe as late as in the 19th century. Their “Indology” is said to be the science about India. “Indology” claims something to be unique in the history of science. Indologists are up to reconstruct the history and culture of that vast area, extending from the South of the Himalaya up to the oceans, called

Bharatavarsa, shortly ancient “India”, its inhabitants, its culture, its history by language analysis of ancient texts, that is by means of its characters, words, sentences only. These Indologists did not care to listen the sound of the language they named Sanskrit. How do they do language analysis without being able to pronounce the words even? ***** A language is always a medium for the exchange of thoughts. Thoughts are exchanged in specific environments together with facial expressions, with gestures and with the sound of words, i.e. in spoken modus. There is no substitute for the spoken modus. There

cannot be any. A rich language is the expression of a rich treasure of experiences of those who have shaped the language and who use the language. The written modus is a secondary storage facility for those treasures. Written Sanskrit texts, therefore, can never substitute the wholeness of these texts handed-down in oral tradition, i.e. texts with correct sounds and physical expressions. This has always to be kept in the depth of our mind when we read texts in any language. The availability of characters of a language in writing is a later development than that of the language itself. Written characters, scripts are media of transport only; they

are not contents, not knowledge. Comprehending the wholeness of a foreign culture or/and knowledge by its written expressions only, i.e. by reading a text, is impossible and does certainly not reveal the whole treasure of experiences packed in that text of a language. ***** We again take liberty here to maintain that we are simple-minded searchers. We are constantly reducing our willingness to believe and we do raise more questions, than many others do, because we want to know. We had to learn in a tiresome way to ask questions, imperturbably and pitiless to seek the

answers. In the process, we have often discovered stories of major significance, untold so far. We are constantly learning to put open questions than to begin our search along with pre-fabricated theories. As indicated earlier, whenever we come across a statement unknown to us we want to know about the author to begin with. Other questions follow. While practicing this simple exercise we are surprised that many stories in circulation in the so-called scholarly world do not stand facing even a few questions. Contradictions become evident. Thus, panoramas of knowledge open up. The inventors of such contradictory

stories regularly succeed in creating an aura of authority. Once this authority is accepted, one has to believe. This has become our major discovery that many assertions, stories are being more and more readily accepted by the oncoming generations of “scientists”. The inventors are given places of honour in the ancestors’ gallery of modern history and science. Some of them are pillar saints, demigods. Therefore we stopped dealing with scholarly assertions before we knew who the scholar concerned is. We first find out how he gets to his theme, how he gets to postulate his assertion, who provided for his upkeep, who profited

from the results of his work and who lost; in short: before we acquire full knowledge of the documented biography we decline to be occupied with the written deliberations. This is simple and straightforward. We take liberty to learn to eliminate “the wheat from the chaff”. ***** It is indeed surprising that the recent “great discoverers” of the treasures of ancient India are the ones who fall into “India” first robbing, murdering, and carrying away everything that could be removed. They occupy the country and exploit it on a long term. After the first consolidation the same “honourable society” hires mercenaries with a gift for

rhetoric and “riches, i.e. bribes” to lay the foundations for a long lasting exploitation and oppression. In the process, they are faced with vast amount of literature in a language no more spoken but somehow omnipresent in the occupied lands. There they face a problem. The language appears to be called Sanskrit. How to integrate the influence of this language for a long lasting exploitation and oppression? In this process, these exploiters and oppressors learnt that it was not the language that had to be “colonized”, but the knowledge, the messages it transported. Since 1786, it is being asserted that

there exists a narrow philological Kinship between Sanskrit, that language of the ancient India on the one side and Greek, Latin as well as the German and Celtic languages on the other. From there it is just one small step to the “family of Indo-European languages”. Looted ancient texts are being hauled to Europe, later also claimed these deciphered employing an auxiliary device called Sanskrit-EnglishDictionaries. Dubious persons who were Sanskrit ignorant created the first of these “dictionaries” as late as in 1819. The deciphered texts in this manner were rendered in English. These translations and the Sanskrit-EnglishDictionaries were then brought back to

India to equip the “educational institutions” installed by the British occupants. We feel, we have to spread out all events accompanying this process. These accompanying facts tell us a thrilling story. In our search, we presently focus on one vital aspect. Which was the way the language named Sanskrit travelled from “India” to Europe? Who were those who taught and spread this Sanskrit language in European countries? When, how, from whom and for how long did these teacher learn this language? *****

From the end of the 19th century, Indology is being taught in almost all German universities. Nothing goes in the field of Indology without that language named Sanskrit. Thus, the German “intellectuals” participated in the endless process of exploitations and oppression of the people of Bharatavarsa by the British Kingdom securing a share in the race for booties by dubious contributions. Tracking back on this search a first lighthouse comes in sight. It was not before the 2nd February 1786 that what the founder and president of the “Asiatick Society” in Kolkata proclaimed in a solemn speech as his

own discovery, which is irrefutably accepted by modern scholars. We refer to our Chapter 7 for details and recall here an essential part: “The Sanscrit 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, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from

some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists: there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothick and Celtick, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and one the old Persian might be added to the same family, if this were the place for discussing any question concerning the antiquities of Persia.” This president of the “Asiatick Society” in Kolkata does not disclose how he came to his discovery. No modern scientist has ever questioned his discovery so far. The name of this president is William Jones, Sir William

Jones, 40 years old, appointed as a British Judge in Kolkata since the autumn of 1783. We remember the real malice of this bold discovery. Even in 1786 this remarkable Sir William is unable to understand any of the languages spoken in British India. Within months from his arrival in Kolkata he does found his “Asiatick Society”. Only “colonial” exploiters of British descent have access to this society. None of the founding members understand and speak any of the then current Indian languages. No Asians are included in this“Asiatick Society”. William Jones uses this “Asiatick Society” to transport his Asian

stories by means of a periodical called “Asiatic Researches”, financed by the East India Company. This is the first factory of systematic faking of history and of brainwashing. Who is this William Jones really? We must not repeat here. We have dealt with this William Jones in details in our Chapter 7. Here a few key-points. He is trained in Harrow and at Oxford University as an “intellectual prostitute” par excellence. He earns the nickname “Oriental Jones”, based on his own very personal assumption to have mastered the Arabic, Persian and Chinese language. On the 19th of September 1770, he

begins studying law at the Middle Temple. William Jones qualifies as a lawyer in 1774. As time went by he makes the acquaintance of important persons of the London society, he belongs to it, but still does not get any lucrative job. At the time, the East India Company had occupied large regions in Bharatavarsa. As early as 1773, these are declared as property of the Crown and thenceforth jointly ruled by a “Governor General” and a “Council” of four members. As an intermediate authority a tribunal called “Supreme Court of Judicature” was installed. The latter had four well paid judges. The British Parliament and the

board of governors of the East India Company appointed them all for an office term of five years. Stephen Caesar LeMaistre, one of the judges of the “Supreme Court” in Kolkata, dies in November 1777. William Jones wants the job. His endeavour to get hold of the job of the fourth ranking judge in Kolkata does however fail. Disappointed, he is about to migrate to “America”. As he is almost on his way, but still before travelling from Dover to Calais, on the 3rd of March, 1783 he gets the news of his appointment to the job as a judge, although in the meantime he had put his foot in all kinds of places. He drops

“America” and his promise of assistance to his friend. He puts pen to paper and sells his soul to his supposed patron. The supposed patron is however only a supposed one. He therefore sells his soul a second time, after having learned who had been the real patron. He was no less a prostitute as the “intellectuals” generally are in historical processes. We hope, we are not discriminating the socalled prostitutes. It is said that the socalled prostitutes sell their body only, not their soul or other skills. William Jones is knighted on the 20th of March 1783. On the 8th of April Sir William marries his beloved Anna Maria Shipley, a rich woman about his

age. He is thirty-seven now. Time to say “goodbye” has arrived. Bengal is far away. The frigate “Crocodile” sails on the 11th of April 1783. It is not recorded whether he had any literature about “India” in his luggage on this voyage lasting several months. At the time, there were many reliable books about “India”, not by Christian authors, but at any rate by Persian, Arab and ancient Greek writers. William Jones is said to have had command of these three languages. During five long months, he is secluded within the “Crocodile”. It is certainly not incidental that, according to records, he had the “Book of Books” in his

luggage. He has lots of time. Time enough, anyway, to discover the most zealous missionary in the depth of his soul. He recalls again “Oriental Jones”. As such, he has “sold” Bengal – both under a cultural and linguistic aspect – as “Persia’s backyard”. Well, those he is dealing with are ignorant. Still, we are indeed amused by his announcing in writing already before his arrival on Bengals soil a number of great intellectual “discoveries”. Nobody wondered. Up to this day. Or does a “genius” know everything beforehand? What, where and when he will really discover? Or shall we have an afterthought about the “age of discovery” claimed by the European

Christians? In fact, he does not only lay the foundation stone of his wonder-some constructions. The products of his “factories” and of those of Sir William’s descendants are accepted as valid up to this day. ***** To keep the confusion within limits a bit of information beforehand briefly. It does not originate from the treasure box of the “Indologists”, or from the modern science of languages. The language, as it is taught today as Sanskrit, is one of these products from Kolkata. Indology too, as far as its cause is concerned. Not

earlier than in the late 19th century did the indologist’s realize that the oldest and most exacting literature from Bharatavarsa, the Vedas, are not composed in the language named or called Sanskrit, but in the Vedic language, which is remarkably older than “Sanskrit”. Just as “Sanskrit” is older than Prakrit. Only the characters in written modus are common of these three languages. Who has knowledge of these characters will, of course, be able to “decipher” Veda texts as well as Prakrit or “Sanskrit”, but he will neither be able to articulate the sounds, nor understand the meanings. The versions of the Vedas in European

languages, which are still indiscriminately marketed today, are translations made as if the original Vedic text were written in a language called Sanskrit. This fact alone, if subject to a correct evaluation, indicates that the “Indological” print products as such are not worth the paper used to print them. These are only fit to be kept in “Bad Libraries” only. Hereby we keep aside the aspects of incompetent translators, hasty translations, bad translation and the critical basic aspects of translations in general. Prior to the creations of “Indology” three main languages had existed in Bharatavarsa before written characters

were created: “Bhoota Bhasha”, “Chhando Bhasha” and “Laukika Bhasha”. “Bhasha” means language. In the traditional Veda literature “Bhoota Bhasa” was not used. “Chhando Bhasha” is the language of the Vedas. Many among the commentaries on and about the Vedas are handed down in “Laukika Bhasha”. “Laukika Bhasha” is the language called Sanskrit, the real Sanskrit language. A long time had elapsed and many ways had been gone before characters of the written mode were invented as an external device to store the books in these languages as vehicle to conserve knowledge. Compressing sounds and

gestures into written characters as secondary storage. “Bhoota Bhasha” has 42 characters, “Chhando Bhasha”, the language of the Vedas, 97 and “Laukika Bhasha”, the Sanskrit, 63 or 64 characters respectively. It is not exactly handed down whether also “Bhoota Bhasha” had invented written characters. It is known that “Chhando Bhasha” invented first the “Brahmi” characters and later on the Devanagari characters. Devanagari is also the type of characters of “Laukika Bhasha”. After the invention of Devanagari a fourth language is handed down: “Devanagari Bhasha” with 51 characters. We would like to conclude

this small part of reference with two questions to be thought over thoroughly: 1. What does the different number of characters mean and 2. How many characters do the mother tongues of the “Indologists” have? The last mentioned three languages with Devanagari characters share a common particular aspect. Even the shortest sounds, the syllables, are formed according to strict rules. And their importance differs. The main syllables, the roots, so-to-speak, unfold into words in which other syllables join them, at the beginning or at the end or both ways. The meaning of the “root-syllables” varies also according to the way words are being formed. Without knowledge of

the single syllables, of their manifold combinations and of the grammar rules, the words cannot be understood in proper context. Even identical words have a different meaning according to their position within the sentence and to the meaning of the sentence as a whole. The meaning of the sentence depends again from the meaning of the whole paragraph. This is why in these languages traditionally no dictionaries existed. Instead of dictionaries, there are comprehensive grammar books. How the seeds (root-syllables) develop into a tree with ramifications (the meaning of the whole paragraph), is something

which cannot be learned the quick way. Even grammar books do not arise from nil. The coming into existence of comprehensive grammar books presupposes comprehensive literary, metaphysical and scientific books followed by continuous discussions establishing rules. And not the other way round. The later created rules of grammar are helpful in order to understand the meaning of the books. No matter whatever “linguistic scientists” or “scientists of comparative linguistic” may say. Without developing a feeling for the Vedas, in sciences and in metaphysics and for the philosophies in the Upanishads these languages cannot

be learned. It might even be that they have at no time been learned for everyday use. Nowhere. This might be the reason why from “Chhando Bhasha”, the language of the Vedas, and “Laukika Bhasha”, the Sanskrit later, Prakrit, Pali (the language of Buddhist literature) and up to the 14 main languages mentioned in the constitution of the Republic of India have developed. Just as a marginal remark: from Pali downwards several types of characters have been invented. These new languages have 43 characters. Grammar, i.e. the complex of rules, is in no language a purpose to itself. The complex of rules for a language does not

depend upon the invention of written modes. A written mode comes into being later than grammar. We do seldom realize that characters and writing are only vehicles developed at a later stage as means for the transport of spoken messages. And such vehicles are superfluous when there is nothing to transport. The scientists of the blond-blue-eyedwhite-Christian culture haven’t spent a thought about the question why there were no dictionaries for the Vedic language and real Sanskrit language. They have just jumped at producing dictionaries for short-cuts. They were never able or never willing to understand that these old languages using

Devanagari characters just cannot be shortened. We shall soon see what the consequence thereof has been. The term “blond-blue-eyed-whiteChristian culture” is not a notion but the simply understandable exact denomination of the four pillars on which “the wonder that is” the culture which rules today. No misunderstanding. We, the searchers of this documentary narration, are also a part of this culture, though we are not blond-blue-eyedwhite-Christians. We are born and brought up in India. Before the World War was declared by Portugal, Spain and Vatican on the rest of the world, which was then followed

by systematic occupation, robbery, murder and annihilation of cultural goods of non-Christian cultures by this prevailing culture there has been no qualitative differentiations of humankind based on outer marks. The systematic occupation, robbery, murder and annihilation of cultural goods of nonChristian cultures are still being carried on under different masks. Crusades, “reconquista”, piracy, colonization, arbitrary labelling of phases of continued war as world-wars, bombings (including atomic weapons), crusades for democracy, “humanitarian” interventions are the names of these masks, created to veil the Era of Vasco

da Gama, to cover the simple fact that the only World War has been declared by European Christians on the nonChristian World that is still vehemently continuing. This culture is rooted in the very first “revelation”. The “God” reveals the truth and the ten “commandments” to Moses. So it is said. Well. Why does a God reveal the truth to a singular person? Once questions are tabooed, is there any alternative left for others, for the rest, than either to believe in this revelation or to be made to believe? Questions had never been relevant for Jews, Christians and Muslims, all descending from this culture of

revelation. In practice, it is a culture structured by belief, by misuse of might, by untruthfulness and all the vices go with it. The Jews and the Muslims however were less dominant so far. How was that human society before the advent of Moses? Long before Moses? The history of humankind is much longer than the short history after Moses, isn’t it? We close this bit of information to be saved in memory and mind. And we would like to add: terms like “immigration”, “race”, “caste”, “India”, “Hindu”, “belief”, “religion”, “temple”, etc. just do not originate from Bharatavarsa. There is no mention of

these and similar terms in the ancient literature of Bharatavarsa. They are foreign creations. Mostly by “foreign occupants”. ***** All species known to us achieve mutual understanding by sounds and gestures. Each species avails itself respectively possesses a specific limited extension of sounds and gestures. Cats and dogs are thus able to understand each other in all countries without scientific support. Also people of all countries have always understood each other and do it to this day. A support of linguistics or similar “sciences” is not needed.

Only humankind has gone farther than the slightly modulated sounds and gestures of the other species for the purpose of mutual exchange of information. We do not know whether other species like ants have reached a likely performance. The original exchange of information by our ancestors must have taken place by sound and gestures, face-to-face. Everywhere. Since when do these many sciences about communication, exist at all? Are they created before the Era of Vasco da Gama? We raise this question for the dating acrobats. Their homework is incomplete. We imagine that our ancestors became aware of their environment and of the

world in an increasingly qualified and constantly more precise way. And in the process of exchange of their awareness and experiences they have developed the span of sounds into language and the gestures into descriptive art. We imagine furthermore that this process of systematizing was a long lasting, laborious way and that it would not have been possible without the kind of exchange face-to-face. Various observations, perceptions, interpretations and opinions were exchanged, discussed, checked, adjusted and agreed upon. Always by mutual understanding and agreement. Continuously. The contents of knowledge agreed upon were memorized.

Every exchange face-to-face, whether of experiences, observations, opinions, imaginations, reports about happenings or stories based on lies acts upon us, alters us and we do grow, in whatever direction this may be. During such an exchange we see and hear each other directly. Without any intermediate aids or devices constructed by modern scholars. We observe any whim of the face and register any emphasis of the speech. We have a reciprocal access to questions and comments. No type of exchange other than this can more efficiently make sure that the contents of the information can be transferred unequivocally and truly. The various sounds and visual signals characterize

various connexions of experiences. By mutual agreement. In our times, too, this kind of exchange is the main one used in everyday life. Without any lasting misunderstandings. This is why we are able to make ourselves mutually understood without any “scientific supports”. If the quality of this type of exchange were not exceptionally good and convincing, the accumulation of knowledge would never have come about. It is still a long way to knowledge in many fields – to sciences, to grammar. And this long journey needs no writing as a vehicle to external storage. In other words: The development of alphabet,

syllable, word, speech, literature, philosophy and grammar does not presuppose the existence of writing. Writing is an external store and vehicle. When does the need for writing as a store – and vehicle – arise? We assume that it is undisputed by all sides that the head had served its purpose for a long time to store all kinds of completed thematic treatises. As the quantity increases errors do come up in the course of time while recalling the knowledge stored in memory. The regular occurring of errors in an irregular chronological sequence must have prompted our ancestors to find many ways in order to secure an exchange of knowledge free of errors:

Ø Collective practice of correct recalling, Ø Building up mnemonic aids, Ø Poems about true to life tales of various events of a most different kind, Ø The putting into verse of events and knowledge with different metrics, sounds, finally even putting marks on weatherproof materials as secondary storage. And the marks developed into characters and writing, going by steps through drawings, graphic representations, symbols.

Our ancestors always considered external storage as audio-visual support for human memory, so to speak as a “second choice of reliability”. They were worried about the loss of sound and gesture whilst making use of external storages. The development of “phonetics” in the written mode is unmistakable evidence of this fact. The handed down variety of external stores as well. The first choice remains the human memory. Therefore, the tradition of oral transfer of knowledge has been maintained in Bharatavarsa. This tradition persists to this day. With the invention of writing as a tool for exchange, we missed not only the heights and depths of the sound and the

whims of the face as an expression whilst talking, but also the exchange from face to face. We are thus always in danger of having to put up with the “second choice of reliability” or worse. It is undisputed that the invention and development of writing, the discovery of mobile weatherproof materials up to the easy multiplication of books in writing have been formidable performances of cultural technology. Writing made it possible that accumulated knowledge although in a slim form implicating errors – can be stored outside of the human head in a comparatively easy accessible way. The limits of time and space for the exchange can thus be

overcome. Writing as a medium for external storage, as an intermediate addition to the direct exchange, can foster our knowledge. No doubt about it, but only as an intermediate addition. Writing as a medium makes it possible that lies and swindles are being transported as well, evading an immediate check up. Without the knowledge in memory and its face-toface exchange, the value of the external stores is diminished. We face it day for day. The wheeling and dealing of the mighty industrial complex: MightMedia-Manipulation. ***** Now we get back to the language named

Sanskrit and to its hiking way to Europe. Alexander the Macedonian (2300 years ago) was the first European ruffian who put his foot on Bharatavarsa’s soil. The ancient Greeks did trade with Bharatavarsa even much before the first “revelation” in the history of humankind. Alexander would not have taken upon himself this effort, had nothing about the rich civilisation and culture beyond the river Shindhu (Greek “Indos”) been known to him already beforehand. No ruffian gang leader plans a depredating robbery into the blue or into regions where there is nothing to be robbed. It is known that Alexander could not enter deep into India. He suffered sensitive setbacks. He had to start his retreat. He

died already at the age of 32. Yet the ancient Greeks have handed down to posterity a great deal of valuable knowledge about Bharatavarsa, but nothing at all about a language called Sanskrit. St. Thomas set foot upon this soil some 1600 years ago. There is a controversy in dating. This controversy is not relevant in our context. We are safe with our assertion that St. Thomas set foot upon the soil of Bharatavarsa much earlier than other Christians. He did not come as a ruffian, but as a refugee with his followers. The Thomas-Christians are still in the South, where they had landed. Fully integrated.

The Portuguese Vasco da Gama is the next European ruffian who set foot upon the soil of Bharatavarsa which he reached by sea. He did not land in Goa, as is commonly assumed, but in Kappad near Calicut (Kozhikode). It is because of the streams and of the winds of the ocean. He did not carry goods for trade or exchange, no currency for buying goods, but strong men instead, many weapons and Catholic clergymen. Almost one third of the troopers he had hired, letting them believe that they would return home as rich men, did not survive the long journey by sea. Calicut and the coast towards South are densely populated. Not so suitable for

robbery incursions. So Vasco da Gama sailed along the coast in a northern direction. He settled down at the solitary southern edge of Mormugao Bay, where the river Zuari flows into the sea. The distance between this anchorage and Calicut amounts to more than 800 kilometres and between the said anchorage and Old-Goa there are lots of water and about 45 kilometres over land. From the anchorage, he undertakes small predatory attacks. Food is needed. He relies on the effect of surprise. He gets nowhere into serious trouble. The unexpected brutality causes surprise. Thus also fear spreads. The invaders

build barricades. This is how the occupation begins, nowadays spoken of in a palliative way as the building of “strongholds”. Yet another example of Christian moral doctrine. He is in no hurry. Winds and streams allow sailing outward and back only in a yearly rhythm. There is enough time left for spying out. Vasco da Gama sails back to Portugal with a ship fully loaded with robbed goods. The remaining ruffians with their weapons and their clergymen stay on; they rob on a small scale, spy out and wait for reinforcements. Henceforth the Portuguese sail with fleets of more ships, on the outward journey with as

many troopers, weapons and clergymen as possible, then homewards with a full booty. After eleven years of careful preparation, the ruffian called Alfonso de Albuquerque takes the capital city, now known as Old Goa, from its Moslem ruler Adil Adil Shah. He was the son of the Moslem ruffian, Mahmud Gawan, who had driven away the local ruler in 1470. The celebrated and alleged great discoverer Vasco da Gama had previously “discovered” Goa at least three times, Alfonso de Albuquerque at least twice. The annihilation of the Moslem rule was so thorough, that nowadays nothing reminiscent of the

earlier time can be found even in the archaeological museum of Old Goa, not to speak of the townscape. Churches, cathedrals and the basilica, all richly decorated in gold, characterize the townscape. The building materials were not imported from Europe. These were also not imported from other parts of Bharatavarsa. Churches, cathedrals and the basilica were built on old building foundations after demolishing the upper building parts. As we know, the Portuguese acted as a “colonial power” for a very long time, i. e. exactly 450 years. Modern historians and “Indologists” have marketed the fairytale that Vasco da Gama had been

the great discoverer of the seaway to India. This assertion is not even halftrue. There had already been a lively trade by seaways even before the Portuguese and other Europeans knew that the earth is by no means a disc, but a planet. The purpose of this story about the great discoverer is to conceal that these ruffians gave the start also in Bharatavarsa extending the World War declared by the papal bulls in the 15th century, which is always followed by robbery, genocide, occupation, deprivation of rights and continuous exploitation. This procedure was then minced by calling it “colonialism”,

which consequently made capitalism possible in the first place. Always with fraudulent labelling done by courtesy of European courtesans decorated as “scholars”. At the time of Vasco da Gama the Christian cross was brought into the hunting grounds; this is the case in the Era of Vasco da Gama with the alleged liberty granting democracy and humanism. Both are fig leafs for robbery, murder, occupation, deprivation of rights and the continuous exploitation of alien territories. ***** In the year 1518, the Franciscans settled in Goa. The order of the Jesuits had just been founded in 1540, as already in

1542 the Jesuit missionary Francisco Xavier (1506-1552) came to Goa, 1548 followed the Dominicans and 1572 the Augustinians. Other Christian orders followed as support for the soldiers. The Portuguese ruffians and missionaries are maniacs as far as robbery and conversion are concerned. There are hardly any traces of language interchange. A few clumsy glossaries and grammar books of local languages for their own use have been handeddown. Much more was not achieved, not even by that most noble amongst Roman nobility, Padre Roberto de Nobili, who was by no means second to William Jones as far as impudence, cunning and

unscrupulousness are concerned. He, too, became aware of the high culture in Bharatavarsa and tried to Christianise it in his own way. Of course, the Vatican supported Padre Roberto de Nobili. However, he did not get far enough to reach the language of the rich old literature of Bharatavarsa. What Filippo Sassetti from Florence brought to paper on the 27th of January 1585 should not remain unmentioned also here. He had entered employment as a commercial servant of many European “gentlemen” who were interested in the profit from exploitation between Goa and Cochin. He is inasmuch an exceptional character in the gallery of

Christian soldiers and exploiters. “...We may say, so it seems to me, that the disease of this century is that in all parts of the world sciences are (written) in a language other than the one which is being spoken; by which disease all these people are affected as well, since their language differs so much from the one in which their science is (written) that they need 6 years’ time to learn it; this because they do not act as the Jews, who teach their children the language of the laws as we teach parrots to speak; but these here have the grammar and make use of it. The language in itself is pleasant and has a beautiful sound, because of the many elements, of

which they have up to 53, of which each has its own ground, because they let them all originate from the different movements of mouth and tongue. They translate easily our notions into their (language), and they deem that we cannot do the same with theirs into our language, because of the lack of half of the elements, or more. It is true that great difficulty is experienced when uttering their words with their sounds and accents (which is what they wish to say); and I think that the cause thereof is to a great extent the different temper of the tongue, because eating at all times that so excellent leaf of herb which they call betel, which is largely

astringent and drying, together with that fruit which they call ‘areca’, in ancient times called ‘avellana indica’, and the whole mixed with plaster, they have as a consequence their tongue and mouth dry and quick, whilst the contrary applies to us.” The Jesuit Heinrich Roth of German origin was the first one to discover the Sanskrit language as Sanskrit. We know him as well. He is said to have learned fast the languages Kannada, Persian, Urdu and some others as well in Goa. We don’t know how. Later he was transferred from Goa to Agra He becomes the director of the local Jesuit-

college. There he learns the Sanskrit language for six years. He becomes aware of the significance of the Sanskrit language for the mission and writes around the year 1660 a grammar with explanations in Latin. So we are told. It is published in Leiden as a facsimile together with two other manuscripts in 1988. Today’s Indologists confirm that Heinrich Roth’s grammar was the best compared with all others. This is no wonder. Because Heinrich Roth had copied from the perfect system of grammar by Panini, an all-time perfect work. ***** It is certain that nobody has arranged a

hiking trail for the language called Sanskrit using the Catholic track. Therefore back again to the East India Company, back again to Kolkata. The British put more weight on the purchase of human beings than on Christianization of persons in the occupied territories. They buy people on all levels, guided by the principle: divide and rule. The higher ranks of the “colonizers” buy additionally “Brahmins” as personal interpreters and advisers, the so-called “Pandits”. Pandit translated, means scholar. We shall give no comment about the question whether the hired “Pandits” of the East India Company were scholars.

We only ask how the language interchange about exacting matters between these “Pandits” and the “colonial” ruffians might have taken place. Besides, there is no evidence of even a single case in which a known scholar from Bengal or from elsewhere has allowed himself to be put on the pay-list of the East India Company as a “Pandit”. When Sir William lands in Kolkata in the autumn of 1783, he knows nothing about a language called Sanskrit, but maintained that he had command of 32 languages. He had himself not been able to name them all together. His “scholarly descendants” didn’t bother regarding his

inability. They continue to believe in the myth of 32 languages and bow respectfully. In Kolkata, Sir William gets busy to getting his bearings and acquires acknowledgement in the “honourable colonial society” as the “Oriental Jones”. He finds on the spot Warren Hastings as Governor General, two printing centres owned by the British Crown, managed by one Charles Wilkins, who is said to have widespread contacts outside of the Company. He is in Kolkata since 1770 as a ruffian. In the seventh chapter, we have documented how Charles Wilkins became a printer and then the manager of

the two printing centres in Bengal in details. We recall, it was the need of a Bengali grammar felt by Warren Hastings. He wanted to get it printed as soon as possible, to train British ruffians and writers in local languages for more efficient exploitation of the people of Bharatavarsa. And Charles Wilkins makes it possible by forming Bengali letters in lead. Thus Warren Hastings laid a more efficient foundation to Christianising an ancient culture than Roberto de Nobili, the front soldier of Vatican. Who was this Warren Hastings? Before we spread out his Vita and his deeds, it is necessary to know more about the

wheeling and dealings of the East India Company. ***** With papal blessings, we recall, the Spaniards and the Portuguese are the front warriors of the European Christians and harmoniously enjoy “monopoly” of robbery and genocide in foreign lands. Then the buccaneers (pirates) from Britain, Netherlands and France arrive on the naval scene in the middle of the 16th century with blessings of their rulers. Britain win ultimately this murderous war-game and becomes the super power establishing the contemporary blond-blue-eyed-whiteChristian culture as the “trademark” of

the Era of Vasco da Gama. Everything was allowed in this World War. They capture each others’ ships, fight for control of the sea routes and to occupying “strongholds” on foreign soil. Britain, Netherlands and France set up their own “East India Companies”. The British “ruffians” and their employer camouflage themselves more effectively as traders. Their “East India Company” is set up in 1600 as a monopoly trade company. The Britons begin their “trade campaign” 1612 in the unfavourable northern part of the western coast in Surat. As “traders”, of course. Finally, in 1700 Surat is taken under British

possession. They have learnt from the Portuguese experiences. The Portuguese were not able to take land in the interior of the country. Lack of resources or lack of vision. The Britons try to conquer and occupy as much of the hinterland as possible. They are also in search of other ports. They find them on the eastern coast of India, in the delta of Bengal and also some in Southeast-Asia. The same war-game all over. To cut a long murderous story short, the Britons take possession of “India” after “The Battle of Plassey” in 1757. A detail of this history is documented in “Lies with long Legs”. The influence of the Portuguese has

shrunk to only a few enclaves. The Dutch discover greater chances of profit in present Indonesia. The rivalry of power between the French Catholics and the British Anglicans go on as vigorously as ever. The French Catholics lose the battle keeping small insignificant “enclaves” in India like the Portuguese. The Britons are in need of two categories of military personnel thereafter, the “ruffians” and the “writers”. Each of the two categories has its own “pecking order”, of course under the roof of the overall hierarchical order. During this phase, it is easier to recruit personnel. The outlook of making a fortune outweighs the fear of expected

adversities. The formal salary is kept rather low. Even the governors do not get more than £300 a year. However, at all levels each and everyone is entitled to do “private business”. What does this factually mean? Well, the competition amongst each other to make as much booty as possible. By any means, of course. Opportunities aplenty for “soldiers of fortune”, adventurers, for scouts and for the rest are there. Thus the system is created which will later be identified by “modern social scientists” as “the corruption in the Third–World”. Today it has to be conceded as “overall corruption” also in all “democratic countries”. We all know

about “side incomes” of the “representatives of people” in peoples’ parliaments. The philosophy of this system is simple. Everyone must have two sources of earnings: The minor one, agreed upon by contract, for the fulfilment of duty. And the second one, depended on one’s own initiative in order to make private money, and thereby pave the way to lasting exploitation as well. It goes without saying that far more effort is put into the second source of income. Everything is allowed in this War. Thus, some people become rich, a few very rich and a handful stinking rich. Motivated by this low-salary system,

each and every servant of the “East India Company” in India is on a continuous hunt after sources of income. The instincts of a “scout” is activated and trained for a maximum performance. Often it has been played down romanticised by “historians” as “Buccaneer-Spirit”! This hunting spirit was cultivated. Anything is allowed if it also brought long-term benefits for the “Company”. Scholars belonging to “the wonder that was” this culture want us to believe that the credit for the success goes to the “Buccaneer-Spirit of the Elizabethan seamen”. Instead we keep to the eyeopening straight simple words of Josiah

Child (1630–1699) in 1685. He was known as a very aggressive “Servant” of the Company and writes on “commerce”. He does not see any reason to be diplomatic even though he was “made a baronet” in 1678. He writes straightforwardly that the real aim is: “...to establish such a politie of civil and military power, and create and secure such a large revenue to maintain both ... as may be the foundation of a large well-grounded sure English dominion in India for all time to come.” Sir Josiah Child “was the second son of a London merchant. He himself made a fortune of £200000 ... His brother Sir

John was governor of Bombay, where he died, February 4, 1690.” In fact Sir John Child was the “first person to be placed in control of all the English East India Company's trading establishments in India.” How come? “Apparently Child was sent to India as a child to live with an uncle employed there by the Company. In 1672 he married a daughter of Captain John Shaxton, who was the commander of the English garrison at Bombay. Two years later he was implicated in the mutiny of his father-in-law's troops but was restored to favour through the influence of his brother, Sir Josiah Child, the powerful governor of the company in London. Like Sir Josiah, he

was utterly unscrupulous and had a passion for intrigue. His autocratic behaviour as president of Surat led to Captain Richard Keigwin's unsuccessful rebellion in Bombay (1683).” The Chamber’s Biographical Dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Britannica know it all. Though it is tempting to tell of the whole of this story we get back and narrate the story leading to Warren Hastings (1732 – 1818), the first Governor General in British India. In 1743, a young man of 18 years lands in Madras. He was recruited as a “writer” for the Company in London. A “writer” could climb the career ladder via “accountant”, “junior

merchant” to a “senior merchant” in 11 years. This 18-year-old young man belonged to the “lower middle class” and was a problem child, hard to educate. He was the eldest of 13 children. His father was a simple advocate in London making about £500 a year. When he was only three, he was given to the married sister of his mother. Why? We do not know. His aunt and her husband referred to his fierce temper, his inclination for fighting and his proclivity for power. These inclinations were never directed against his kith or kin. Towards them he was a willing boy and obliging. He had to change school frequently. He didn’t earn a school certificate.

He was sent to Merchant Taylors’ in London at the age of 12. He failed as a tailor apprentice. But he always tried to prove, particularly to his father that he was willing and that he did his best, but was dogged by bad luck. His father managed desperately and deposited a bail of £500 to place his wayward son with the Company as a “writer” for India. During his voyage to India in 1743, he fell into the sea and lost valuable garments as well as an expensive belt, a present from his father. After his arrival in Madras he felt obliged to confess this event to his father in a long letter, swearing repeatedly that he could not have avoided this incident even with the best of intentions. He

begged him to believe him. In Madras he was considered to be moody, quarrelsome and violent. He fought a duel also. Fortunately without any adverse results for the duellists. He was often alone and depressed. He once attempted to commit suicide. In one of those recurring battles against the French in 1746 he was taken into captivity. He managed to flee with a few fellow prisoners. Thereafter he wanted to serve the Company as a “ruffian” rather than to continue as a “writer”. His name was Robert Clive (1725–1774). On March 16, 1747 the governor of Madras appoints him an ensign. But only provisionally. He is not yet twenty-two

years old. The Board of Directors in London confirmed the appointment in writing on December 4, 1747 with the remark: “Be sure to encourage Ensign Clive in his martial pursuits, according to his merit: any improvements he shall make therein shall be duly regarded by us.” As a “ruffian”, Robert Clive discovers his cunning, his till now dormant talent for intrigues, for the art of taking others for a ride and particularly for unscrupulous jingoism. He is a guerrilla par excellence. He is soon promoted to a captain.

By his assiduous machinations Robert Clive brings for the East India Company not only “profits”, but also “possessions”. He is, however, disappointed and angry that the commander-in-chief, Stringer Lawrence, did not acknowledge his achievements. He decides to return to England. He had arrived in India in 1743 bare of anything. And in 1753, he is returning home at the age of 28 with a fortune of £40000. Wasn’t that something? How did he earn this amount of money? His rise was a surprise for many. Now he wants to enter into politics. He contests and wins a Parliament seat for

Cornwall, a neglected “borough”, on behalf of one of the fractions of the Whigs. Doesn’t it mean that his activities in India, criminal as such, were approved not just by the “honourable society” of the Company alone? Well. His election, however, is vigorously challenged by rival parliamentary fractions and finally cancelled on March 23, 1755. He is utterly fed up. He accepts an offer of the East India Company to join as the Deputy to the Governor in Madras. On April 23, 1755 he sails to India again. By 1756, the East India Company had established itself to the extent that blunt and direct robbery was no more

required to exploit the country effectively. How did it work? Bombay, Madras and Kolkata were safeguarded from the seaside as forts; the Company could “buy monopoly rights” for “trading” in the surroundings of its strongholds from the rapidly declining central Mogul authority in Delhi and then set the “terms for this trade”. The “rights” were not cheap. But the Company paid comfortably out of its rich booty in the provinces. Thus the Company was legitimised vis-à-vis the regional rulers who were more busy fighting each other for possession and power. The Company exploited this paralysing situation of the regional rulers and began to expand on the land-

side. How? The method is old: “divide and rule”. It was intrigue at its cunning best. The structure thus established is still functioning to our days. In June 1756 the news reached Madras that the young Nabob of Bengal, Sirajud-daula had just conquered Kolkata. How come? The appointee of Delhi, Nabob Ali Vardi Khan, was already quite old. A vehement struggle for power went around his legacy. The Company exploited the weakness of the Nabob to expand its base from Kolkata further inland and consolidate new areas of influence. They didn’t give a damn for the laws then valid in Bengal. They just announced that the expansion was

necessary to protect their “market” sanctioned by the central authority in Delhi. We apologise being remembered of almost identical announcements by the “International Community” these days. The British Christians got support from local non-Muslim moneylenders. This was the situation which greeted the old “ruffian” Robert Clive when he arrives in Madras on August 24, 1756. After some more dilly-dallying, the choice falls on “Admiral” Charles Watson and Robert Clive to regain the influence in Bengal. They arrive in the Bay of Bengal on January 2, 1757 with few ships and a strong troop and start the well-proven game of primitive intrigues and of small

pinpricks with Christian zeal. Without scruples, that goes without saying. They succeed in buying Mir Jafar, the commander-in-chief of Siraj-ud-daula, after the army had already been destabilised with the help of nonMuslim “bankers”. The betrayal makes it possible for a troop of approximately 3000 people, European Christians and local mercenaries, to defeat Siraj-uddaula at an insignificant place called Palashy on June 23, 1757. In spite of his troops of approximately 50000 soldiers. He was pursued to his capital Murshidabad, arrested and then executed. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1995)

glorifies this “Battle of Plassey” with the following lines: “News of the fall of Calcutta reached Madras in August 1756. After some delay Clive was given command of the relief expedition and set out on Oct. 16, 1756, with 900 Europeans and 1,500 Indians. Clive retook Calcutta on Jan. 2, 1757, and forced the Nabob to restore the company's privileges, pay compensation, and allow the British to fortify Calcutta. Determined to take advantage of discontent with the Nawab's regime, he sponsored a new ruler in order to ensure conditions agreeable to the company's trade. His candidate was Mir Ja'far, an elderly general secretly hostile to Siraj-ud-

daula. Clive broke with Siraj-ud-daula and overthrew him at the Battle of Plassey on June 23. The conflict was more of a cannonade than a battle, and only 23 of Clive's men were killed. This victory made Clive the virtual master of Bengal.” This is creating “history”! Sorry, we are again brought back to our days. The method of interventions in foreign lands by the “international community” i.e. the “coalition of the willing nations”, is old. No wonder. It comes from the same breed. Robert Clive installs Mir Jafar as Nabob on June 29, 1757 and reigns over Bengal like a despot. Though he is disliked by many, but he is a guarantor of

heavy profits for the Company. At the court of this Nabob he places his personal representative, a similar aggressive “ruffian” like him. Warren Hastings. He is then 25 years old. Before we deal with Warren Hastings, we apologise for our temptation to reproducing first a letter of Robert Clive dated January 7, 1759 to William Pitt the Elder, (the later 1st Earl of Chatham) and narrate completely Robert Clive: “I have therefore presumed, Sir, to represent the execution of a design, that may hereafter be still carried to greater lengths, be worthy that may

hereafter be still carried to greater lengths, be worthy of the Government’s taking it into hand. I flatter myself I have made pretty clear to you that there will be little or no difficulty in obtaining the absolute possession of these rich kingdoms, and that with the Mogul’s own consent, on condition of paying him less than a fifth of the revenues thereof. Now I leave you to judge whether an income yearly of upwards of two millions sterling, with the possession of three provinces abounding in the most valuable productions of nature and of art, be an object deserving the public attention; and whether it be worth the

nation’s while to take proper measures to secure such an acquisition, – an acquisition which, under the management of so able and disinterested a minister, would prove a source of immense wealth to the kingdom, and might in time be appropriated in part as a fund towards diminishing the heavy load of debt under which we at the present labour. Add to these advantages the influence we shall thereby acquire over the several European nations engaged in the commerce here, which these could no longer carry on but through our indulgence, and under such limitations as we should think fit to

prescribe. It is worthy consideration that this project may be brought about without draining the mother country, as has been too much the case with our possessions in America. A small force from home will be sufficient, as we always make sure of any number we please of black troops, who, being both much better paid and treated by us than by the country powers, will very readily enter into our service.” Robert Clive is frank, is straightforward. Who is this William Pitt? We can look into the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “His mother, Lady Harriet Villiers, daughter of

Viscount Grandison, belonged to the Anglo-Irish nobility; his father, Robert Pitt, member of Parliament, was the son of Thomas ("Diamond") Pitt, governor of the East India Company's ‘factory’ at Madras, India, where he made a vast fortune and secured one of the world's largest diamonds (sold in 1717 to the regent of France).” William Pitt is Prime Minister in England when Robert Clive writes this letter to him. Robert Clive leaves Kolkata on February 21, 1760. On July 9, he reaches England. He is not yet 35 years old. He is celebrated publicly and in the “honourable society” on a grand scale. On July 14, King George II receives

him. On September 2, he receives an honorary Doctor degree from Oxford University. Yes, from Oxford University. In March 1761 he is again elected a member of parliament for the “Whigs”. At the end of the year 1761 he is raised to nobility. Warren Hastings remains at the court of Mir Jafar in Murshidabad till 1761. After Robert Clive’s departure from Kolkata he doesn’t have any function there. He is ordered back to Kolkata. He joins the “council”. He is now 29. He feels strains in the Council. The protecting hand of Robert Clive is no longer there. He manages to carry on in the “Council” up to 1764.

Then he resigns from his service and returns home. Had he stayed a little longer in Kolkata till Robert Clive’s return as Lord Clive, his career would have taken a different turn. Well! Warren Hastings is back in London, only 32, but wealthy. He hadn’t learnt anything else than being a “ruffian” for the East India Company. What can he do in London? He doesn’t know England really, doesn’t have any friends, is bored, hangs around and after some time the money so easily earned in India is also spent. He soon realises that to do “business” in England was something very different than to do “private business” as an employee of the East India Company in India.

The East India Company was the largest source of revenue for the British kingdom. And wherever there is a lot of money to make there is also a lot of fights for influence and power. In 1763 (March-April) influential Whig peers like the Duke of Portland, the Marquis of Rockingham, Lord Middleton, Lord John Cavendish sends Lord Clive into the arena to fight for the Chairmanship of the Board of Directors against Lawrence Sullivan, a Tory. Lord Clive loses. But yet the tide turns soon in his favour. In November 1763 the stocks of the Company begin to fall at the stock exchange. Adverse reports were coming from Bengal. Political troubles.

Then there was a rumour in February 1764 about a war between the Nabob and the Company in the air. In an extraordinary meeting on March 12, 1764 the shareholders decide to appeal to Lord Clive to take over the post of the Governor of Bengal, although Lord John Spencer (we know him also) has just been chosen for this post. And prior to this nomination Lord Spencer has defeated the Tory representative Lawrence Sullivan in the election for the chairmanship of the Board of Directors. Yet this is again the time of Robert Clive, though both Lord Spencer and Lord Clive belonged to the Whigs.

Almost all shareholders beseech Lord Clive to sail to Bengal immediately and set everything right again. He let himself be persuaded. On April 30, 1764 he is appointed Governor of Bengal and Commander-in-chief. As a matter of fact he had reached his zenith a long time ago. He is no longer the old “ruffian”. But he feels also the rough and cold wind in Parliament and in the society. After all he doesn’t belong to those who have the say in England. So what was he to do? On June 3, 1764 he is already out at sea on his sail to India. At the same time our William Jones had successfully completed his school at Harrow. He was now almost 18 and

took up the study of literature at Oxford. He was soon to become a private tutor at the house of Lord John Spencer. The voyage of Lord Clive lasts longer than planned. The ship sailed astray and landed in Rio de Janeiro. He reaches Madras as late as on April 10, 1765 and doesn’t land in Kolkata before May 3. A war did not take place. The tensions had dissolved almost by themselves as in the meantime there had been two changeovers of power in Bengal. Finally in August an agreement is signed according to which the whole of Eastern India becomes de facto the property of the East India Company. They have to settle a few chaotic matters, which has

resulted from Lord Clive’s private effort to gather a fortune time and again at the Company’s expense during his stormy period. He leaves India on January 29, 1767, also because of illness. He is 42 now, though totally burnt out. He knew that he couldn’t make a political career in Britain. His social origin was too low. Since 1772 he has been frequently attacked in parliament because of his machinations in India and also as a despot. By all those who became affluent through his gruesome machinations in India. Lord North, a Tory, is now Prime Minister. On November 23, 1774 Lord Clive commits suicide at the age of 49.

The easy money of Warren Hastings was used up in few years. For all he had learnt there was no demand in England. Therefore he reports to the East India Company. And he was welcome to the Company as an experienced man who had been so well trained by Lord Clive in Bengal. In 1769 he is appointed “second boss” in the “Council” of Madras. Two years later he is sent to Kolkata as Governor of Bengal. He was born in 1732. His father was a cleric of the Anglican Church. He left his son in the lurch. Why? How should we know? He was brought up by one of his uncles in London. He could not complete his schools because his uncle

died in 1749. Now 17, he was recruited by the East India Company as a “writer” and sent to Kolkata. He climbed the career ladder rather rapidly. We recall, when Robert Clive was in Kolkata, he took notice of Warren Hastings. We remember: after the young Siraj-ud-Daula was hanged in Murshidabad and Mir Jafar installed as Nabob in 1757, Warren Hastings became Robert Clive’s personal watchdog at the court there. After the departure of Robert Clive he was asked to join the “Council” in Kolkata. Finally he left India in 1764. So Warren Hastings, now 39, is back to

his old hunting ground in 1771. In those last seven years, when Hastings was in England, the Mogul empire had continued to crumble. The disintegration of the regional and local powers had followed. Since the battle of Palashy 1757 the influence of the British occupant was on the rise. Though de jure the central Mogul authority in Delhi selected the appointees for administration, de facto they were in bondage to the East India Company. The Company took only care that the central authority regularly received the agreed amount as revenue. Otherwise it settled everything else on its own. For all practical purposes, the Company was in control of all administrative

committees along with the courts. The language of the public administration and of the courts remained “Indian Persian”. The Company apparently had only “indirect influence on government business”. The indigenous officials also frequently outwitted the Company. The same principle – small official salary and freedom for “private business” – was valid for either. This system intrigued Warren Hastings. He factually had to run a “government” which was totally corrupt. In England politicians who wanted to abolish the de facto overseas possessions of the private companies were gaining influence. We recall what

Robert Clive had written to William Pitt the Elder. William Pitt the Elder was still Prime Minister. We must leave it to others to find out who had influenced whom, when and how. For our search we only note that Warren Hastings is appointed as the first Governor-General of Fort William in Kolkata by “The Regulating Act 1773”. He was to develop missionary zeal in contrast to Robert Clive. Robert Clive was after maximum land taking and maximum protection of the own people. Everything else was secondary. Warren Hastings is keener not to be outwitted by local “staffs” that factually ran the “government business”.

As far as the exercise of power is concerned, it was to be led by the principles of British Christian customs, whatever that might have been. Therefore he wanted to replace the “Indian government officials” by Britons wherever it was possible. This happens continuously. To begin with, he installs law courts throughout the entire occupied area at all levels. No new laws were introduced yet, just new British Christian judges. He does it uncompromisingly. He gives a damn to the well being of the local collaborators. He just wants that all legal matters in the occupied area were taken care of exclusively by Britons. These Britons were to learn the local languages. Thus

the time came for Charles Wilkins, we remember. Along with Warren Hastings’ promotion to the post of GovernorGeneral the governors of Madras and Bombay becomes his subordinates. And yet this didn’t mean an increase of his power. Prior to this he had exercised unlimited power in Bengal. Now he has to share power with a “Supreme Council” of four persons. Three of them are new in India. An army officer, Sir John Clavering, is the chairman. Philip Francis, an ambitious civilian, organises very soon a majority in the “Council” against Warren Hastings. And the Governor-General is not equipped with

a veto. He is constantly criticised, attacked and mobbed in the “Council” because allegedly nothing has changed in spite of his “reform”. Bribery, blackmail and corruptions were rampant. We get the impression that the actual controversies had another background. A change in the quality of “colonisation” was taking place. The time of the “ruffians” was finally over. They were not needed anymore. They could just go. The “clerks” and “justifiers” from “better families” were on way. Warren Hastings was the last high official without a completed school education, without a professional training. Philip Francis would have been pleased to

replace Warren Hastings as Governorgeneral. But Warren Hastings was still needed in the south and in the north of India for the forthcoming battles. The controversies within the “Supreme Council” divided the Britons in India as well as in Britain in two strong fractions. Warren Hastings fought a few battles in India. Battles meant instant expense. When the dividends dropped the shareholders were not very finicky about looking for scapegoats. The “Supreme Council” supplies them with ammunition. Allegations of arbitrariness, corruption and incompetence against Warren Hastings become louder also in London. His

opponents in the “Supreme Council” encourage Bengali Maharaja Nandakumar, who was close to the Britons, to accuse Warren Hastings of corruption before the “Supreme Court”. This case doesn’t come up. But a reverse one. A case of fraud and forgery is made against Nandakumar in the “Supreme Court”. He is found guilty and hanged. Sir Elijah Impey is the senior judge. This procedure had cast shadows not only on the “Supreme Court”. It was 1775 in Kolkata. In 1777 another attempt is launched to get rid of Warren Hastings. “The Supreme Court of Kolkata” foils this attempt too. Sir

Elijah Impey is still there as the senior judge. Warren Hastings is still needed in India. The tensions do not subside even after the death of Chairman Sir John Clavering of the “Supreme Council”, though Warren Hastings is slowly gaining the upper hand. Finally the controversies in Kolkata end in 1780 when Philip Francis was wounded by Warren Hastings in a duel and thereafter left Kolkata for home. Philip Francis carries his war of accusations to London. Warren Hastings needs positive news from Kolkata. He discovers Charles Wilkins who knew more about the local people and their customs. And the “Oriental

Jones” arrives in Kolkata in 1783. Warren Hastings starts a cultural initiative without knowing that he actually started the Christianisation of an ancient culture by theft of cultural product, by forging the contents, by systematic brainwashing, practically by all evil means. The atmosphere becomes specially heated when an anonymous pamphlet, either written or lanced by Philip Francis, was published. In 1784 he also wins a seat in Parliament where he propagates an impeachment procedure against Warren Hastings. Along with this his Headquarter takes objection to his arbitrary and coarse dealing with the

regional rulers in India leading to unnecessary tensions. He is also embroiled in a number of battles. Even victorious battles were temporary setbacks in terms of profits. These are attributed to his arrogant and tactless handling. “Pitt's India Act” is passed in Parliament in 1784. Now William Pitt the Younger is the Prime Minister. “Pitts India Act” installs a parliamentary committee, the Regulatory Board, as the highest decision making body for the possessions in India. The accusations against Warren Hastings in London did not abate. In 1785 he resigns from his service and leaves Kolkata at the age of

fiftytwo. On his arrival, Britain greets him with an impeachment, the charges being breach of duty and power abuse. A Parliamentary investigating committee of the House of Lords is set up. The committee hold 145 sessions in seven years. Warren Hastings is acquitted of all accusations on April 23, 1795. His personal honour is reinstated. But his fortune of £80000 brought from India was used up in this long procedure. The East India Company does not leave its last prominent “ruffian” in the lurch and grants Warren Hastings a pension enabling him to live the life of a “country gentleman”, whatever that might have been. He lives a long life. On

August 22, 1818 he dies in Daylesford, Worcestershire, aged 86. Warren Hastings was not honoured like Robert Clive. Nor was he knighted like his intimate enemy Philip Francis. As we have said, this was the time for welleducated “clerks” and “justifiers”. “As the first governor general of Bengal, Hastings was responsible for consolidating British control over the first major Indian province to be conquered. In his term of office he initiated solutions to such problems as how vast Indian populations were to be administered by a handful of foreigners and how the British, now themselves a major Indian power,

were to fit into the state system of 18th-century India. These solutions were to have a profound influence on Britain's future role in India. Hastings' career is also of importance in raising for the British public at home other problems created by their new Indian empireproblems of the degree of control to be exercised over Englishmen in India and of the standards of integrity and fair dealing to be expected from them – and the solutions to these problems were also important for the future.” This is the summarising Assessment of the Encyclopaedia Britannica in its

edition of 1995 on the crimes committed by Warren Hastings in India. Is it not exemplary for contemporary European Christian morals as well? Many features of the colonial period have been criticised. But there is not even a hint that “colonialism” was sheer crime: robbery, violence, assault, deprivation of rights, exploitation, murder, and genocide. This was the cultural background. This was the stage in Kolkata on which William Jones so “brilliantly” performed. William Jones met Warren Hastings at the end of 1783 and became his friend. *****

It is the time of consolidation of the rule over Bengal conquered by the East India Company after the battle of Palashy in 1757. Its boss in Kolkata – Warren Hastings, as we know, promoted from the lowest rank of ruffians to “Governor General” – wishes to foster the efficiency of the Company’s employees by getting them to learn the languages spoken on the spot. Textbooks in the local languages are needed. Typographers and printers are not so easy to recruit in England for the inhospitable “colonial” service. This is the hour of Charles Wilkins. He practices casting Bengali characters in lead. Thus he is soon promoted to director of two printing centres.

Warren Hastings encourages Charles Wilkins to improve his knowledge on local languages. Though there had been “Pandits” at Kolkata, Charles Wilkins wishes to go to Varanasi (after getting its “colonial” scent mark the city is named Benares). He had been ill and needed rehabilitation anyway. Warren Hastings encourages him as well to visit the University there. He gets this leave. When William Jones arrives at Kolkata, Charles Wilkins was in Varanasi, we remember that was the autumn 1783. It was said that Charles Wilkins had picked up Sanskrit there. Thus he becomes important for the windy “Oriental Jones”, though positioned quite low in the pecking order. He is

now 34 years old. William Jones is 37. And Warren Hastings is 52. We recall the events that followed in quick motion. As early as on the 15th of January, 1784 William Jones calls a gathering of the “honourable colonial godfathers” in Kolkata, 13 by number, to found a society of scholars (without scholars) named “Asiatick Society of Bengal”. Charles Wilkins does not belong to the circle of this “honourable colonial godfathers”. These founders offer the boss, Governor-General Warren Hastings, who in England did not even manage to finish a school, the chairmanship of this “scholarly society”. Warren Hastings slyly thanks and

declines the offer. He prefers to market "The Asiatick Society of Bengal” as a cultural achievement of his administration. Therefore Sir William takes up the presidency. With great pleasure. Henceforth “The Asiatick Society of Bengal” develops to the first “factory” for deliberately faking history and for systematic brainwashing. And the side effect of this coupe is that, in terms of prestige, Sir William becomes the second to Warren Hastings in the British establishment in Kolkata. Asians or Bengalis had no access to “The Asiatick Society of Bengal”, we recall. Why should they? They had only to take to heart and propagate the

“history” and the “stories” of the new rulers, if they were striving after prosperity in their own lives. And what should Asians or Bengalis have to do there if even the founder of this “factory”, “Oriental Jones”, was not even able to understand what they spoke? The “Asiatick Society of Bengal” sows the seed, which has in logical consequence led to the global yoke of the industrial complex mediamanipulation-might in our days. On October 4, 1784 Warren Hastings writes al letter to Nathaniel Smith, a long note of several pages. Here are the first two sentences which must not be commented:

“Sir, To you, as to the first member of the first commercial body, not only of the present age, but of all the known generations of mankind, I presume to offer, and to recommend through you, for an offering to the public, a very curious specimen of the Literature, the M, and Morality of the ancient Hindoos. It is an episodical extract from the ‘Mahabharat’, a most voluminous poem, affirmed to have been written upwards of four thousand years ago, by Kreeshna Dwypayen Veias, a learned Bramin ; to whom is also attributed the compilation of ‘The Four Vedes or Bedes,’ the only existing original scriptures of the religion of Brahma ;

and the composition of all the pooranas, which are to this day taught in their schools, and venerated as poems of divine inspiration.” Pages follow that reflect the level of knowledge of the “Pandits” in Kolkata and the intellectual level of the British occupants in India as well. Then he introduces Charles Wilkins (highlighted by us): “It now remains to say something of the Translator, Mr. Charles Wilkins. This Gentleman, to whose ingenuity, unaided by models for imitation, and by artists for his direction, your government is indebted for its printing-office, and for many official

purposes to which it has been profitably applied, with an extent unknown in Europe, has united to an early and successful attainment of the Persian and Bengal languages, the study of the Sanskreet. ... Mr. Wilkins’s health having suffered a decline from the fatigues of business, from which his gratuitous labours allowed him to relaxation, he was advised to try a change of air for his recovery. I myself recommended that of Banaris, for the sake of additional advantage which he might derive from a residence in a place which is considered as the first seminary of Hindoo learning ; ...

If you, Sir, on the perusal of Mr. Wilkins’s performance, shall judge it worthy of so honourable patronage, may I take further liberty to request that you will be pleased to present it to the Court of Directors, for publication by their authority, and to use your interest to obtain it ? ... I think it is proper to assure you, that the subject of this address, and its design, were equally unknown to the person who is the object of it ; from whom I originally obtained the translation for another purpose, which on a second revisal of the work I changed from a belief that it merited a better destination.

A mind rendered susceptible by the daily experiences of unmerited reproach, may be executed if it anticipates even unreasonable or improbable objections. This must be my plea for any apparent futility in the following observation. I have seen an extract from a foreign work of great literary credit, in which my name is mentioned, with very undeserved applause, for an attempt to introduce the knowledge of Hindoo literature into the European world, by forcing or corrupting the religious consciences of the Pundits, or professors of their sacred doctrines. This reflection was produced by the publication of Mr. Halhed’s

translation of the Poottee, or code of Hindu laws ; and is totally devoid of foundation. For myself I can declare truly that the acquisition could not have been obtained but by such means as have been supposed, I should never have sought it. It was contributed both cheerfully and gratuitously, by men of the most respectable characters for sanctity and learning in Bengal, who refused to accept more than the moderate daily subsistence of one rupee each, during the term that they were employed on the compilation ; nor will it much redound to my credit, when I add, that they have not received no other reward for their

meritorious labours. ... I have the honour to be, with respect, Sir, Your most obedient, and Most humble Servant, Warren Hastings.” We find also a letter from Charles Wilkins to Warren Hastings dated 19. November, 1784 (Highlights are ours): "TO THE HONORABLE, WARREN HASTINGS, ESQ., GOVERNOR GENERAL, &C. &C". Honorable Sir, Unconscious of the liberal purpose for which you intended the Geeta, when, at your request, I had the

honor to present you with a copy of the manuscript, I was the less felicitous about its imperfections, because I knew that your extensive acquaintance with the customs and religious tenets of the Hindoos would elucidate every passage that was obscure, and I had so often experienced approbation from your partiality, and correction from your pen: It was the theme of a pupil to his preceptor and patron. But since I received your commands to prepare it for the public view, I feel all that anxiety which must be inseparable from one who, for the first time, is about to appear before that awful tribunal ; and I should dread the

event, were I not convinced that the liberal sentiments expressed in the letter you have done me the honor to write, in recommendation of the work, to the Chairman of the Direction, if permitted to accompany it to the press, would screen me, under its own intrinsic merit, from all censure. The world, Sir, is so well acquainted with your boundless patronage in general, and of the personal encouragement you have constantly given to my fellow-servants in particular, to render themselves more capable of performing their duty in the various branches of commerce, revenue, and policy, by the study of the languages, with the laws and customs of the

natives, that I must deem the first fruit of every genius you have raised a tribute justly due to the source from which it sprang. As that personal encouragement alone first exited emulation in my breast, and urged me to prosecute my particular studies, even beyond the line of pecuniary reward, I humbly request you will permit me, in token of my gratitude, to lay the Geeta publicly at your feet. I have the honor to subscribe myself, with great respect, Honorable Sir, Your most obedient, and most humble Servant, CHA s WILKENS” Charles Wilkins writes also a preface: “The translator’s preface”. He refers to

one “Pandit” only while he nears the end of the document: “... by the Pandeet who was confused.” Warren Hastinigs has given a different account. It does not make any difference whether one or more “Pandits” contributed to the “translation”. But it does make a difference when we read the immediately following sentence in “The translator’s preface”: “The Translator has not as yet had leisure to read any part of those ancient scriptures. He is told, that a very few of the original number of chapters are now to be found, and that the study of these is so difficult, that there are but few men in Banaris who understand any part of them.”

Charles Wilkins cannot read Sanskrit any way. At best he could have translated from one of the available Bengali translations only. The pronunciations of names indicate for sure that he consulted Bengali translations, if he translated at all. Thus Warren Hastings and Sir William laid the groundwork for the phase that has been named “colonization” and for Christianization of culture of Bharatavarsa. Without knowing even one syllable of that language called Sanskrit, we recall, Sir William elects and announces Charles Wilkins to a great “Sanskrit scholar” as early as in 1784, in order to position himself as the

second greatest “Sanskrit scholar”. This appraisal is valid up to this day. Sir William also encouraged Charles Wilkins to the so-called translation of “Bhagvat-Geeta”, which was printed by Charles Wilkins in Kolkata and distributed by the East India Company in England. Already in 1784. It was embellished with a highly laudatory preface by Warren Hastings,

“Google-Books” has recently published a digital copy of a copy done in 1867 in New York that is available at Harvard Divinity School. This reprint was done for the New York University. If we trust

the New York University in 1867, it was reprinted from a copy that was printed in 1785 at London.

We don’t intend to get into a discourse on “Srimad Bhagavat-Gita”. We reproduce the title page of the copy printed at London 1785: No one has questioned as yet how Charles Wilkins could have learnt Sanskrit at Varanasi in a few days while he was recovering his health from an illness in 1783 and translate his “Bhagvat-Geeta” from original Sanskrit in 1784. ***** This culture of “translation” still prevails and controls the market of “sciences”, science subjects emerging

since the 16th century. The BhagavadGita has been translated several hundred times by “scholars” belonging to the “wonder that is this culture. Always from the original Sanskrit. Of course! William Jones, the second greatest Sanskrit scholar of that time, today’s demigod, implores Charles Wilkins from the very beginning to compile a Sanskrit-English- Dictionary with the help of the “Pandits” in Kolkata. Charles Wilkins does not succeed in doing so. Then he sails back to England in 1786 due to illness, we recall. He tries to fulfil the desire of Sir William in England too. He does not succeed. He lived a long life. He is helpless without

the “Pandits”. Instead of the dictionary for Sir William he presents in 1787 the translation of “The Heetopades of Veeshnoo-Sarma”. Naturally, from the Sanskrit original. We are remembered that Friedrich Maximilian Müller also published his Hitopadesa in 1844 translated from the Sanskrit original. It is even then not noticed by “scholars” that these “fairy tales” were already translated in English and French and published under the title of “Fables of Pilpay”. From Persian translations. We don’t know whether Charles Wilkins had also a Bengali issue of this work in his luggage. In spite of a lively market asking for translations

from the Sanskrit literature he does not succeed in presenting further translations as follow ups. In 1795 – Sir William is already dead – Charles Wilkins publishes yet the story of “Dooshwanta and Sakoontala, translated from Mahabharata, a poem in Sanskrit, London 1795”. It did not escape our notice that we haven’t been told in which language that Mahabharata was written from which Charles Wilkins translated. Again a gap appears in his biography until Charles Wilkins is employed as a librarian by the East India Company in its newly opened museum in London. Then, around 1808, he publishes a

Sanskrit grammar. He never taught a language called or named Sanskrit. “Asiatick Society of Bengal” remains continuously busy spreading interesting stories under the heading “Asiatick researches”. It can get everything printed in Kolkata and distributed via London all over Europe. The East India Company bears the costs. Willingly. But why does it invest robbed money in such publications? Admittedly, these “cultural activities” conceal efficiently the fact that the European Christians in the “colonies” tramp intentionally and continuously over the “ten commandments” of the Christian faith. Are they Commandments? Aren’t they

rather prohibitions? Whatsoever. We, however, bear doubts whether “The East India Company” ever cared for anything else than for sustaining profits by all means. ***** None within the sphere of influence of the East India Company learnt and taught Sanskrit in Europe so far. But the interest for Sanskrit in Europe grows rapidly. How comes? A psycho-social analysis of this question and of the European scholars could certainly prove highly explosive. The 19th century produces many Sanskrit “scholars” in Europe. It catches one’s

eye that only the new Sanskrit scholars pretend to be the real Sanskrit scholars. And these Sanskrit scholars shoot up like mushrooms, as documents prove. All of them European Christians, above all Germans, though the humus should rather be located in Paris and London. Why? Is it because so many manuscripts and books of the ancient literature, robbed indiscriminately, are stored in the local museums of these two cities, and the German intellectuals do not wish to come away empty-handed in the profit from occupied foreign lands? These new scholars learn the language in a peculiar manner. Alexander Hamilton, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Franz

Bopp and August Wilhelm von Schlegel are pioneers. But the first book is published by the younger one of the Schlegel brothers, Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829): Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier. Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Altertumskunde (About the language and the wisdom of the “Indier”. A contribution to the establishment of the study of classical antiquity), Heidelberg 1808, we remember. For the enthusiasts of “Oriental sciences” this must have been something like a new Gospel. We remember as well how 31-years-old Friedrich von Schlegel lives and learns

Oriental languages in Paris. Friedrich wishes to learn. How? He told us: “… because the richest collection of works in Oriental languages is kept there”. What has the collection of works to do with learning Oriental languages? That’s how it goes: take a translated version and the original version of a work. This translated version can also be a manifold translated one: Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, English, French and so on and so on. Thus the contents of the original are roughly known. Only as far as the respective translator has dealt with it, of course. The game of guessing and fancying begins. On the 15th of May, 1803 he reports to

his brother about a lucky coincidence. “Otherwise I had an excellent time. Because I did learn a lot, really a lot. I have not only made progress in Persian, but I have at last reached the great goal, that I am sure of my Sanskrit. Within four months I shall be able to read Sakontala in its original version. Although I shall then still need the translation. It did command an enormous effort because of a great complication and a necessary method of my own for guessing and for coping with the trouble, since I had to learn elements without books on elements. At last I was lucky because an Englishman, a certain Hamilton, the only one in

Europe except Wilkins who knows, and very thoroughly at that, came to help me at least by his advice.” We could never have better described this odd method of learning foreign languages. As early as on the 14th of August, 1803 Friedrich von Schlegel lets his brother August know: “I have worked on Sanskrit without interruption and by now I have reached a fairly solid ground. I have already a heap as high as a hand’s breadth of manuscript which I have copied. I am now copying the second dictionary. 3 – 4 hours written Sanskrit by day, and 1 or 2 more hours worked it through again with Hamilton and in the

evening, if I was in good spirits, I still found enough work for further 2 – 3 hours.” He thus copies by hand from the Sanskrit texts and goes over them “with Hamilton”, who seems to have a better command of the characters of writing. It is now up to us to assess the quality of Sanskrit available in Paris. Yet AntoineLéonard de Chézy learns Sanskrit “secretly” and “self-taught”. 29-yearsold Helmine de Chézy meets Franz Bopp 1812 in Aschaffenburg and lays the foundations for German “Indology”. Antoine Léonard de Chézy, teaches Persian since 1807 in Paris, who later on, in 1813, will become the first European professor of Sanskrit at the

Collège de France, at the age of 33 years. On the 1st of January, 1813 Franz Bopp wrote, we remember, his first letter from Paris to his “most venerable friend”, professor Windischmann. “...ever since I am here I am busy only with Arabic, because I was advised to acquire some skill in it before I go for other oriental languages. After gaining some skill in the Arabic I shall begin with Persian, so I hope after 14 days to be able to read light prose in this language; ...Only the Indian languages are not taught here, and nobody studies them. I shall be the only one in the summer,

who is engaged with them. I think indeed to begin with Persian and Sanskrit at the same time during the summer. ...Soon I hope to send you some blossoms of Persian and Indian poets in translation, if only my fate be so favourable as to let me be in Paris long enough. Chézy will be able to afford me good services when I begin the Sanskrit. He is the only one, as I hear, who engages in this language here.” Franz Bopp and William Jones seemed to be cut and carved from the same wood. We fail to understand why Franz Bopp didn’t begin with Sanskrit immediately. The fact that he was

advised to learn Arabic first, revealed actually the ignorance prevailing in Paris in 1812. Obviously it was assumed that Arabic and Sanskrit were related to each other. Even before he started learning Sanskrit he already knew: “The German language is so very much suitable to render faithfully the original Indian thoughts. And I want to contribute my utmost that it (Ramayana) can be read in German language. I am already now capable to translate the first part, available in English translation. The second part is said also to appear soon. ... Without a translation, even if it were

a very free one, I am unable to translate any Indian manuscript yet, Chézy, either, hardly can, although he is engaged in that 6 years longer.” We take note of the date: 27th July, 1814. In 1812 Franz Bopp comes to Paris in order to learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Until March, 1814 he learns only Arabic. In July he had reported to his academic teacher that he could not learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. Why not? Because allegedly Antoine Léonard de Chézy knows no Sanskrit. Besides, Franz Bopp needs no Sanskrit teacher. Because:

“Yet I believe… if I shall have properly penetrated everything which has been written in European languages about Indian mythology, and if I can then proceed further and draw from the sources, if I shall have become familiar with India’s philosophical systems, as well as with those of our own country and those of the Greeks, then, dear friend, I shall be ready to understand Indian works without a translation, and if need be even without a dictionary”. He allegedly masters the Sanskrit characters and their sound so well, that he is already thinking about getting in possession of those in his own way.

How should he have achieved command of the sounds? Who will know? He has explained his further procedure to his academic teacher Windischmann on the 27th July, 1814 as follows: “I have devised an alphabet by which one can reproduce the system of Sanskrit alphabetic characters in a pure form, ...Before I write the grammar, I presumably should make my system of characters known and for this purpose I want to take the Bhagawatgita, the most beautiful parts of which you already know from Schlegel’s (Friedrich von) translation, and publish the (original) text with a very literal translation in Latin, and my brother will probably make the Dewanagari

alphabetic characters for a few pages.” Well, why shouldn’t the Europeans in the next step even write their own “Sanskrit–literature”? Franz Bopp has repeatedly emphasised that he had learnt Sanskrit without any help. In 1825, at the age of 34, Franz Bopp becomes professor of Sanskrit in Berlin. Franz Bopp makes it possible that neither England nor France nor Portugal, but Germany develops into the centre of “Indology”. He becomes the highest priest, the supreme authority on Sanskrit. The Sanskrit-English-Dictionary Sir William had so fervently cherished for is

finally published in Kolkata, as late as 1819, under the management of Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860). Many “Pandits” are said to have done the complete work. In which language the many “Pandits” should have communicated with the members of the “honourable colonial society” and which may have been the quality of this interchange has not been handed-down. The same applies to the real intellectual quality of these “Pandits”. The only certain thing is that they have delivered something which is not possible at all. That is a Sanskrit-English-Dictionary. The East India Company has financed the whole thing.

***** The first Sanskrit-English dictionary is in its ultimate effect the most important milestone in the long way of Christianisation of the ancient literature and culture of Bharatavarsa. It is irrelevant whether it was created specifically for this purpose or not. The hard fact is that the ancient literature and culture of Bharatavarsa are creation of the people having the mind of Bharatavarsa. Similarly the European Christians there were having Christian minds. Their perceptions in Bharatavarsa are determined by the Christian culture, are translated into their vernacular and into the Christian

culture. This is the process by which this dictionary excludes everything beyond the standards and boundaries of Christianity represented by Horace Hayman Wilson and thus laid by it. In 1819, a language named Sanskrit was created by this first Sanskrit-English dictionary. On the 15th October, 1800 another “William Jones” is born: Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859). As the offspring of a renowned evangelical family he gets a better start, but he is otherwise endowed with the same character traits as William Jones. We apologise to look a little ahead once again. Thomas Babington Macaulay

will develop not only into the “Godfather” (Pate) of the theory of the “Arian race”. We shall also deal with him in a while. He is extraordinarily precocious, an offspring of an Evangelical family with high missionary zeal. He begins his training 1818 at the Trinity College, Cambridge, gets known as an endless orator and a congenial chum under the outstanding young men in Cambridge. 1822 he gets his B.A., studies the Law without enthusiasm, writes poems. We are again remembered of William Jones. In 1823 yet another “William Jones” is born in Dessau, Friedrich Maximilian Müller.

In 1826, Thomas Babington Macaulay is licensed as a solicitor, but never gets to seriously practice the profession. Unlike William Jones and Friedrich Maximilian Müller he must earn a living for the whole family since his father goes bankrupt. Unlike Friedrich Maximilian Müller he earns a part of the needed amount to support his family as a private teacher. He earns also by writing and from the income of a lower job in the government. At the age of 30 he manages to win the election to the House of Commons for the Whigs of Caine in Wiltshire. As an eloquent orator in a time full of mighty speakers he also gets appointed as Secretary to the “Board of Control” of the East

India Company. He climbs rapidly in his career. So do his ambitions. In Parliament he tinkers at a bill, whereby he earns the lucrative position of a legal adviser to the “Supreme Council of India”. The respective passage in the Encyclopaedia Britannica will later spell as follows: “In 1834 Macaulay accepted an invitation to serve on the recently created “Supreme Council” of India, foreseeing that he could save from his salary enough to give him a competence for life.” What does it mean? Is this a faking of history only? Whatever it is, we let it be

here. In 1834, he sails to Kolkata with his sister Hannah, who will soon leave him in order to get married to one Charles Edward Trevelyan. She and her son will later be his biographers. Thus the intrigues in Parliament by which Thomas Babington Macaulay gets his income increased from £ 1500 to £ 10000 remain undiscovered. This is how biographers write “history”. We generalise in full intentions. In Kolkata he introduces on the 2nd of February, 1835 a draft of the education programme for “colonized” India. On the 7th of March a deliberation is passed accordingly. The centre piece of his programme reads:

“I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. – But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. ...I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature, is, indeed, fully admitted (...). In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. ...of all foreign tongues, the

English tongue is that which would be most useful to our native subjects. (...) We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. (...) it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars. ... We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western

nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.” This is a thorough programme for cultural cloning. In a letter to his father Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote on the 12th October, 1836: “It is my firm belief that, if our plan of education is followed up, there will not be a single idolater among respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily

rejoice in this prospect.” Thomas Babington Macaulay will play more roles in our search and in our documentary narration. We shall deal with him later in due course. He will stay in India up to 1838 and enjoy his increased income from £ 1500 to £ 10000. Is it needed specifically to mention that his increased income was sucked from the people of India? We close this chapter ascertaining the simple fact that not a single Sanskrit teacher in Europe had a personal encounter with the Vedic and the Sanskrit language. And we put forward the simple question why the “shareholders” of the East India

Company invested so much of its robbed resources in the creation of a language named Sanskrit and all that went with it.

CHAPTER 12

WHAT DOES FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER DO IN LONDON? “While working in Paris I constantly felt the want of some essential MSS. which were at the Library of the East India Company in London, and my desire to visit England consequently grew stronger and stronger; but I had not the wherewithal to pay for the journey, much less for a stay of even a fortnight in London. At last (June, 1846) I thought that I had scraped together enough to warrant my

starting.” In June, 1846 Friedrich Maximilian Müller is 22 and half years old. Up till now he has not acquired qualifications to be able to write a book like: “A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature – so far it illustrates – the Primitive Religion of the Brahmins.” He might have become an expert in copying handwritten texts written in a language he cannot read and understand. Now he is in London. He does not understand or speak English. He knows only that there were Sanskrit MSS. “at the Library of the East India Company in London”. He does not know anything else. We keep

our eyes wide open to observe his doings. We read and evaluate our primary sources and ascertain, what comes out from this adventure. We continue our reading in the Chapter: Arrival in England, “My Autobiography”, p.182 ff, by Max Müller: “... Once on board my rapture soon collapsed and was succeeded by that well-known feeling of misery which I have so frequently experienced since then, and I huddled myself up in a corner of the deck. There a young fellow-traveller saw the poor bundle of misery, and tried to comfort me, and brought me what

he thought was good for me, not, however, without a certain merry twinkle in his eye and a few kindly jokes at my expense. We landed at the docks in London, a real drizzly day, rain and mist, and such a crowd rushing on shore that I missed my cheerful friend and felt quite lost. In addition to all this a porter had run away with my portmanteau, which contained my books and Mss., in fact all my worldly goods. At that moment my young friend reappeared, and seeing the plight I was in, came to my assistance. ‘You stay here,’ he said, ‘and I will arrange everything for you;’ and so he did. He fetched a four-wheeler, put my luggage on the

top, bundled me inside, and drove with me through a maze of London streets to his rooms in the Temple. Then, still knowing nothing about me, he asked me to spend the night in his rooms, gave me a bed and everything else I wanted for the night. The next morning he took me out to look for lodgings, which we found in Essex Street, a small street leading out of the strand. The room which I took was almost entirely filled by an immense fourposted bed. I had never seen such a structure before, and during the first night that I slept in it, I was constant fear that the top of the bed would fall and smother me as the German

Märchen. When the landlady came in to see me in the morning, after asking how I slept, the first thing she said was, ‘But sir, don’t you want another “piller”?’ I looked bewildered, and said: ‘Why, what shall I do with another piller? And where will you put it?’ She then touched the pillows under my head and said, ‘Well, Sir, you shall have another “piller” tomorrow’. ‘How shall I ever learn English,’ I said to myself. ‘if a “piller” means really a soft pillow?’ But to return to my unknown friend, he cam every day to show me things which I ought to see in London, and bought me tickets for theatres and concerts, which he said were sent to

him. His name was William Howard Russel, endeared to so many, high and low, under the name of ‘Billy’ Russel’, the first and most brilliant warcorrespondent of the Times during the Crimean War. He remained my warm and true friend through life, and even now when we are both cripples, we delight in meeting and talking over very distant days.” This is a palatable and extraordinarily entertaining story, a heartbreaking too. But it is a story only. This is another exemplary episode showing how Max Müller invented “facts” to build his memorial. The facts narrated by Friedrich Maximilian Müller are very

different. In a little while we shall deal with his the first letter to his mother on June 13, 1846. Georgina Max Müller reproduced this letter also, but, as ever, in a strongly manipulated version. She elaborated the story on pages 48 - 52, which even differs from the story told by Max Müller. We have given the whole reference to verify our assessment. We must not prove once more how unscrupulously Georgina Max Müller tried to make us believe in her manipulated version in almost five pages. We reckon here all that what happened after Friedrich Maximilian Müller left Paris for London and before

he wrote that letter dated June 13, 1846 from London. Late afternoon he leaves Paris for London via Boulogne on June 9, 1846. The steamer sails over night. The sea is quiet. After arrival in England he has to pass the customs house. He does not speak English. He gets help from a young man who knew French. They converse with each other, he as an Orientalist and the young man as a student of Law at Temple. They meet again in London. This young man was born in Dublin. In 1850, when he is 30 years old, he reports on the war between Prussian and Danish troops in Denmark for a

newspaper. He makes thereafter a career as a British-Irish reporter on wars with “The Times”. His name is William Howard Russel. After the Crimean War he delivers a series of lectures at various towns in England, also in Oxford. There they meet again. After his return from India in 1859 they meet several times, and take up a correspondence on his experience of a country in which Friedrich Maximilian Müller was interested. Their last meeting is in 1870 in Oxford with his second wife, Countess Antoinette Malvezzi, an Italian, and stays there for a few days. He is later knighted. The story of “piller” and “pillow” is a cute anecdote only.

Now we read his original letter dated June 13, 1846 (highlighted by us): “My dear Mother, So I really have happily arrived at London, I don’t know what to say or write, as my head is full of things with what I saw and heard. Please be content with my simple report on my journey and the cheerful news that the ocean has not swallowed me. I left Paris on the 9th, at 5 p.m., by diligence. The last days I moved around a lot as from all corners I was overwhelmed by friendliness so that it was very difficult for me to get away from Paris. Thereby I have naturally talked and drank a lot, first and

foremost I amused myself nicely. My table neighbours talked always in German, offered me another dinner with Champaign etc., also the Marrins and few other families, Burnouf, Countess Berthoer, whom I believe, I did not mention to you yet. She is a young nice woman, whose husband lost his life in Algeria, she herself lived long in India, very musical and we have played and smoked together a lot. Gathy was no longer in Paris, he went to Hamburg. Many of my friends came seeing me off at the post-office und I departed with a heavy heart. The key of Hagedorn’ rooms I gave to Ledderhose, as these had to be kept

for another 3 months. Thereafter, the furniture, etc. were to be kept in a small room before he himself comes to Paris. In P. I had, as you can imagine, still many expenses, so your money order came at a right time. I have naturally received 800 fr. only than it was mentioned on the draft discounting some amount, which was compensated by the shirts you have sent. I thank you much for these and for the 20 ths. which you had put into the pockets, and the moneybag has pleased me greatly. The nervous convulsions of my eyes has increased, which will definitely make you anxious, me too. The shirts suit me well and they are very useful in

London. – ... So I started from Paris, the whole night through and arrived at 1.00 a.m. in Boulogne (50 fr.). I saw from far off the rolling, endless ocean, and I hardly arrived to my hotel, I set off for a walk on the promenade along the beach. I tell you that no words can describe the truly indescribable beauty. I wandered around for five hours, till I was forced to come back home, where I took my lunch and then at ten at night I boarded a ship direct to London. It was almost full moon, the sea quiet and beautiful, baring a few minutes of spitting, I had truly a wonderful voyage. ... Ultimately we reached the customs house. There all my books

and papers were unpacked, of which I have left behind in Paris a full box. With 2 shills. it was done. The fare did cost me 18 shill. ( 1 shill = 8 gl Groschen). I took a cab, and looked out for lodging, which I found also soon, in a very agreeable decent street. I have only a room on the first floor and two windows showing the street must pay 10 shill. per week. The house belongs to a tailor and I am quite satisfied. In the morning I make my tea, take my lunch that costs me 1 ½ and during the rest of time I have moved around to pay calls, whereby I met seldom any one. Tomorrow morning I shall try again to meet Bunsen and Bar. von Cetto.

Today I was in the East India House, where Wilson received me very friendly and invited me for lunch. I went to the British Museum too and made some nice acquaintances. Now I have my Manuscripts at home and I am happy that I can work quietly. ... It appears to me as unbelievable, and I am over-happy, how well and beyond all deserving everything goes with me. Write quite soon how you are and Auguste, this only I am longing for. The life here is also remarkable, and so different than that of Paris. The language is quite difficult, yet I shall manage. Yesterday evening I met an Englishman, a Redakteur (editor) of Times whose acquaintance I made,

and who has already been helpful to me. Well, in my next letter I shall tell you in details on London, as for now I am so fatigued from moving and seeing that I almost fall asleep while writing and know not whether you would be able to read my scrawl. Convey my greeting to Auguste and Krug and to all others and write very soon – by return of post. Let me also know how much you paid for the letter. Adieu my dear, dear Mother. Be embraced and kissed, your Max Adr. Dr. Max Muller London, 46 Essex Street. Strand” *****

We have to take note that Friedrich Maximilian Müller has finally decided to swindle and go in England for one Dr. Max Müller from Germany. We remember, first he swindled to his mother from Berlin when he signed as Dr. Max Müller. It remained then more a private affair. But in England, immediately after his arrival, he announces this swindle publicly by putting it as his address-name. We get back to “My Autobiography”. We read on page 184 ff. (highlighted by us): “I had come over to London expecting to stay about a fortnight, but I had been there working at the

Library in Leadenhall Street for nearly a month, and my work was far from done, when I thought that I ought to call on and pay my respect to the Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen. I little thought at the time when I was ushered into his presence that this acquaintance was to become a turning-point of my life. If I owed much to Burnouf, how can I tell what I owed to Bunsen? I was amazed at his kindness with which from the very first he received me. I had no claim whatever on him, and I had as yet done very little as a scholar. It is true that he had known my father in Italy, and that Humboldt, with his usual kindness, had written him (Prussian

Minister, Baron Bunsen) a strong letter of recommendation on my behalf, but that was hardly sufficient reason to account for the real friendship with which he at once honoured me.” We keep aside the presumptions and impudence behind these lines. We keep aside “Eugène Burnouf” too. However, we cannot keep aside our most authentic source, Friedrich Maximilian Müller and his letters to his mother. He wrote on the 13th June 1846 to his mother: “...and during the rest of time I have moved around to pay calls, whereby I met seldom any one. Tomorrow morning I shall try again to meet

Bunsen and Bar. von Cetto.”And now we read in the “My Autobiography”: “...I had been there working at the Library in Leadenhall Street for nearly a month, and my work was far from done, when I thought that I ought to call on and pay my respect to the Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen.” We ascertain again that Max Müller M.A., to put it mildly, did not care to discriminate between his fantasies, facts and truths. Friedrich Maximilian Müller writes again to his mother on 13th July, 1846. Before we get into this letter, we must deal with “the Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen”. We remember,

Georgina Max Müller began her chapter 3, Arrival in Paris: “Archdeacon Hare lost no time in responding to the letter of November 27 from Chevalier Bunsen, for we find a note from Max Müller to the Chevalier dated 'Chemnitz’,”… What is true? We recall our findings. There we had pointed out: These two names, Archdeacon Hare and Chevalier Bunsen did not occur yet in the primary documents. We let Archdeacon Hare be Archdeacon Hare. But, then, a Chevalier Bunsen did never exist. Chevalier is a class of membership in a French or Belgian Order of Chivalry or order of merit.

This Bunsen is most probably the German Christian Charles Josias Bunsen (1791 – 1860). Well, as referred there also, he was not a baron. ***** Now we are certain that our assumption was correct. The said “Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen” of Max Müller was in fact Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, “born at Korbach in 1791, an old small town in the little German principality of Waldeck.” His father was a farmer who was driven by poverty to become a soldier. Thus he could care for the education of Christian. After the high school he joins the nearby Marburg University. But he

immediately moves to Göttingen University. He is 19 years old in 1810. He takes up studies in theology. He finances his studies by giving private lessons. It is handed-down that a few months later the Jena University “granted him the honorary degree of doctor of philosophy”. How and why, we don’t get it straight in our head. Whatsoever. In the same year when he took up his studies at the Göttingen University, he meets a young American, 18 years old, very affluent and very active in the “Burschenschaft” Curonia of the Baltic German students. Whatever might have been the background and reasons, the fact is that this rich young American

engages Christian Bunsen as his personal tutor, thus changing the career of Christian Bunsen radically. This young American was William Backhouse Astor (1792 – 1872). He was the second-oldest son of John Jacob Astor, a rich merchant in New York City. He attended public schools there and in his spare hours and vacations he assisted his father in the store. When he was sixteen, in 1808, he was sent to the Göttingen University. Later he moves to Heidelberg University. He affords to take his personal tutor Christian Bunsen with him. Being based in Heidelberg these two young men undertake a lot travelling

in the South of Germany. Between 1811 and 1813 they travel a lot in Italy too. In 1815, John Jacob Astor returns to the “United States of America” when he is 24 years old, enters partnership with his father and becomes a truly wealthy man, one of the richest men in “America”. Getting back to Christian Bunsen we stumble because of many inconsistencies, which are handed-down as references. What is fiction and what is truth? It is handed-down that Christian Bunsen wins the university essay-prize of the year 1812 by a treatise on the Athenian Law of Inheritance. We recall, at Göttingen University he took up studies in theology

in 1810. In 1812 he could have taken up studies in Laws at Heidelberg University. This has not been handeddown. It is documented that Christian Bunsen travelled in Italy with William Backhouse Astor. It is not handed down where they lived after returning from Italy. It is however told, Christian Bunsen has then turned at the age of 22 or 23, i.e. in 1813 or in 1814, to the study of the religion, laws, language, and literature of the Teutonic races at Munich. However, he does not earn any academic degree at Munich. In fact, nowhere he earns an academic degree. We apologise to look a little ahead.

Christian Charles Josias Bunsen will never make use of his “honorary degree of doctor of philosophy” which was seemingly granted by Jena University. It is a fact that in 1815 William Backhouse Astor leaves Germany and Christian Bunsen comes into contact with Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776 – 1831) at Berlin, who is a DanishGerman statesman and historian becoming Germany's leading historian of Ancient Rome. Since 1810 Barthold Georg Niebuhr was the Royal Historiographer and Professor at the Royal Frederick William University at Berlin. In 1816 he becomes the Prussian Ambassador at Rome. He takes

Christian Bunsen to Rome as his secretary. In 1817 Christian Bunsen marries the rich Welsh Frances Waddington in Rome. Both are then 26 years old. Barthold Georg Niebuhr works on the understanding between Prussia and the Pope. Quite successfully, as it is expressed by the papal bull “De salute animarum” in 1821. In 1823 Barthold Georg Niebuhr resigns and establishes himself at Bonn as a private scholar, where he spends the remainder of his life. As secretary to him Christian Bunsen was brought into contact with the Vatican. He succeeds Barthold Georg Niebuhr as Ambassador of

Prussia at Rome and continues the work on the understanding between Prussia and Vatican on the thorny issue of "mixed" marriages (i.e., between Catholics and Protestants). Christian Bunsen is then 33 years old. Count Ferdinand August von Spiegel zum Desenberg und Canstein (1764 – 1835), wisely supports this “understanding” while he is the Archbishop of Cologne (1824 –1835) as well. The issue is almost happily solved; but the archbishop dies in 1835. The arrangement is not yet ratified. The Jesuits are against it. Between 1835 and 1838 there are lot of intrigues. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen loses the

skirmish, the Pope himself disapproves his activities and as a logical consequence he has to resign as Ambassador of Prussia at Rome in April 1838. He is then 47 years old. It is also handed-down that Archaeology, Arabic and Persian were his hobbies in those years. Being a diplomat of Prussia at Rome he had established a lot of international contacts, relationships and knowledge on all those things that happen behind the scenes of public affairs and politics. He is then sent to England with a special mission. So it is said. However, he takes over a less significant post of a Prussian Ambassador to Switzerland form 1839 – 1841. Then he returns to England. He is

placed in a very comfortable situation in London. London has evolved to the monopole metropolis of “international politics”. He is an experienced diplomat. And his rich Welsh wife Frances Waddington is also there. A remarkable second career begins for him thereafter. As a matter of fact, it had begun in 1840 when Frederick William IV took over the throne of Prussia. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen had met him in 1828 and since then they exchanged their ideas in correspondence. Both were thinking on perspectives for the evangelical religion and of the Anglican Church. They started propagating the Prussian King's fantastic

idea of setting up at Jerusalem a PrussoAnglican bishopric as a banner of unity and as an aggressive force of Protestantism. The British Kingdom, the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of London supported the project. The Jerusalem bishopric was established endowed with Prussian resources and English money that was richly accumulated by the East India Company on behalf of the British Kingdom. The King of Prussia proposes Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in a list of three persons as ambassador to the court of St. James in 1841. Queen Victoria selects him. Thereafter his residence becomes an important meeting

place for all influential political circles in London. All bosses of the East India Company very much included. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen’s political influence had reached its zenith when Friedrich Maximilian Müller arrives in London. We look a little ahead. His political influence begins to decline from 1848 onwards. He retires in 1854, lives in Heidelberg and Bonn. As one of “the last papers signed by Frederick William, before his mind gave way in October, was that which conferred upon him (Christian Charles Josias Bunsen) the title of baron and a peerage for life. In 1858, at the special request of the regent William

(afterwards the emperor), he (Christian Charles Josias von Bunsen) took his seat in the Prussian House of Lords.” When he dies in 1860, the Bunsens lose the “peerage for life”. In his leisure time he engaged himself in a translation of the Bible with commentaries. Instead he published God in History, assisted by Samuel Birch; Egypt's Place in Universal History; Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History as applied to Language and Religion. He had ten children, five daughters and five sons. The second son is of interest in our context. Ernst Bunsen (1819– 1903) becomes an academic, who

publishes various works both in German and in English, notably on Biblical chronology and also some speculative works proposing common origins of Buddhism, Essene Judaism and Christianity. He propagates also racist Aryan mythology. Ernst Bunsen was educated at Berlin in a school for cadets and served in the Prussian Guards. He marries Elizabeth Gurney, daughter of Samuel Gurney, the banker, in 1845, moves to London and dies in London. It is not handeddown whether Ernst Bunsen and Friedrich Maximilian Müller interacted with each other in London on religions, indology and history.

***** In view of these hard facts we fail to comprehend what Max Müller wanted us to believe when he wrote the lines on pages 184 - 185, “My Autobiography” (highlighted and questioned by us): “I had come over to London expecting to stay about a fortnight, but I had been there working at the Library in Leadenhall Street for nearly a month, and my work was far from done, when I thought that I ought to call on and pay my respect to the Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen. I little thought at the time

when I was ushered into his presence that this acquaintance was to become a turning-point of my life. If I owed much to Burnouf, how can I tell what I owed to Bunsen? I was amazed at his kindness with which from the very first he received me. I had no claim whatever on him, and I had as yet done very little as a scholar. It is true that he had known my father in Italy, and that Humboldt, with his usual kindness, had written him a strong letter of recommendation on my behalf, but that was hardly sufficient reason to account for the real friendship with which he at once honoured me.

Baroness Bunsen, in the life of her husband, writes : ‘The kindred mind, their sympathy of heart, the unity in highest aspirations, a congeniality in principles, a fellowship in the pursuit of favorite objects, which attracted and bound Bunsen to his young friend (i.e. myself) rendered this connexion one of the happiest of his life.’ I am proud to think it was so. At first the chief bond between us was that I was engaged on a work which as a young man he had proposed to himself (When ?) as the work of his life, namely, the editio princeps of the Rig-Veda (When did anything about Rig-Veda arrive in Germany?). Often

has he told me how, at the time when he was prosecuting his studies in Göttingen (it could have only been in 1809!), the very existence of such a book was unknown as yet in Germany. The name of Veda had no doubt been known (How could this had been?) and there was a halo of mystery about it, as the oldest book of the world (Was anything of this kind known in Germany? Who could have made this known?). But what it was and where it was to be found no one could tell. Mr. Astor, a pupil of Bunsens’s at Göttingen, had arranged to take Bunsen to India to carry on his researches there. But Bunsen waited and waited in Italy, till at last, after

maintaining himself by giving private lessons, he went to Rome, was taken up by Brandes and Niebuhr, the Prussian Ambassador there, became the friend of the future Frederick William IV, and thus gradually drifted into diplomacy, giving up all hopes of discovering or rescuing the RigVeda.” Again, no doubt, it is a palatable story. Taking it as such, it can go for an authentic one. But we know the vita of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. So we know, this story is just not true. We know also for sure that from the beginning of his school days William Backhouse Astor was a business man.

He was sent to Europe to widen his horizon. There are absolutely no indications that a member of this Astor family ever wished to visit India. And Christian Charles Josias Bunsen had no idea what he wanted to become, when he was 20 years old. But Max Müller must find a plausible explanation for, why Christian Charles Josias Bunsen did finance his stay in London. He invented a sellable story in his own way not to face facts of life. ***** We recall our first chapter. We began our search to scrutinize Max Müller, M.A.’s “Curriculum Vita” in details to assess, whether, when, where, how he could

have eventually acquired knowledge in those subjects that he referred to. After his fifth semester at Leipzig University he did not learn any other subject. We recall also that his qualifications were insufficient to earn any academic degree at Leipzig University or anywhere else. Not to think of any research experience and research qualification. Since then he acquired at best a practice in the skill of copying handwritten Sanskrit MSS. that were more or less accidently kept in the libraries in Berlin, Paris and London. Moreover, he did not learn the language to the extent to be able to discriminate the pages he copied. In Berlin he learnt talking entertainingly on quite a few remote subjects. He

practiced also concocting stories and belying friends and even his mother who sacrificed everything for the welfare of the two orphans. We recall also his letter from Berlin with his signature as Dr. Max Müller indicating to his mother that he had acquired that degree at the Royal Frederick William University in Berlin. We all remember that he matriculated there as Friedrich Maximilian Müller, as a student of theology and did not study at all. Max Müller did not even write a chapter on his stay in Berlin in his “My Autobiography”. In Paris he sold himself as a Sanskrit scholar from Germany being taught

Sanskrit by the professors “Brockhaus, Bopp, and Lassen”. We must not repeat that none of these three gentlemen knew Sanskrit, nor those faked stories told by Max Müller and by Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother during the stay in Paris. Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s “Arrival in England” as indicated in his very first letter to his mother in the end:“Adr. Dr. Max Muller, London, 46 Essex Street. Strand” puts, as a matter of fact, the end of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. We reviewed the academic career of Max Müller M.A. in quick motion. We must ascertain that he did not acquire any of those qualifications that would

entitled him to write those lines as his own research findings, which we have quoted in the beginning of our Chapter One. We shall have to watch what he really does in England, whether he begins a new academic and research career. ***** The fact, that none of the “Sanskrit scholars” of that time attained command of the language called Sanskrit, does not apologise Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s metamorphose to Dr. Max Müller. Though we take note of a time when anybody was free to tell any story without running into any risk. We are again remembered of the proverb: “In

the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.” But the thing is that we are factually dealing with a period in a “Continent of Circe”, with talking-blinds only. Friedrich Maximilian Müller has passed his 23 ½ years in age. The detailed review of his “Curriculum Vita” reveals as well the epub and the quality of his teachers, of his compatriots, of his cultural descendants, the whole of the prevailing culture. We must not and cannot but call a spade, a spade. Our prevailing culture is marked by ignorance, arrogance, plagiarism, greed, unscrupulousness, factitiousness, immorality and brutality. This has become more so during the Era of Vasco da Gama.

We have referred to the papal declaration of War on the rest of the World in the 15th century, to the European occupation of foreign lands, to put it in mild words, beginning with Christopher Columbus, and to the sustained brutal exploitations since the 16th century. Whatever has been sold as “history” or as “knowledge” since then, is not the truth, but manifold cover-ups for extremely inhuman activities of the Vatican and the Kings of Spain and Portugal on the one hand, and those of the Kingdoms of France, Netherlands and England on the other. The major part of the battle between these two European blocks of power and between the kingdoms at the same time was won

by England. Also in Bharatavarsa. We have narrated the history of what happened there in our previous chapters. We mention here only two landmarks: Roberto de Nobili and Warren Hastings. We also take note of the fact, whatever information has been published and indiscriminately spread on Bharatavarsa since the 16th century; the costs were covered directly and indirectly either by the Vatican or by the East India Company. We are too simple minded persons to be able to deny the universal and ancient wisdom: “He, who pays the piper, calls the tune.” In our search we are trying to find out the tune that has

been called by the Vatican or by the British Kingdom. In case of the Vatican it is propagated as missionary activities. Missionary activities? Did Vatican bring the “cross” to the heathen? In case of the British Kingdom represented by the East India Company we cannot overlook two aspects beside murder, robbery and sustained exploitation: East India Company was never a “company” for trading, though it was registered as such. It always represented Britain, its nobles and the crown, all inclusive. This is first. The second aspect is the fact that Britain was not less engaged in missionary activities than the Vatican. Britain did it

at a more perverse level. The main thrust of the Vatican was to capture the “souls” of the “heathens”, the “East India Company“ did it by brain-washing, by capturing the mind; and then converting a section of the population to courtesans and prostitutes. We may not go deeper here. Later we shall deal more with the missionary activities of the British Kingdom. ***** We have to get back to the Chapter: Arrival in England, “My Autobiography” by Max Müller. He wrote 28 pages. In the midst of his imaginary episodes we get bits of substantial information. In addition to

those we have already quoted (p. 184/185) we find a revealing bit of information on page 198: “Bunsen was also my social sponsor in London, and my first peeps into English society were at the Prussian Legation.” But why did Christian Charles Josias Bunsen do this “social sponsoring” for him? We have to look out. Then on page 208 we read (highlighted by us): “... I returned to London to toil away at my Sanskrit MSS. in the little room that had been assigned to me in the Old East India House in Leadenhall Street. That building, too, in which

the reins of the mighty Empire of India were held, mostly by the hands of merchants, has vanished, and the place of it knoweth it no more. However, I thought little of India, I only thought of the library at the East India House, a real Eldorado for an eager Sanskrit student, who had never seen such treasures before.” How could he judge? On which kind of facts could such judgements be based? We have read Max Müller’s chapter “Arrival in England” (p. 182 – 209) carefully in search of reliable pieces of information in the midst of palatable stories. We don’t find any more than mentioned. Keeping Max Müller and the

“Curriculum Vita” of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in mind, we presently get back to the letter of Friedrich Maximilian Müllerto his mother dated 13. July, 1846. We have read all his letters, word by word. They all are long and often disgusting. Nothing has changed in his chaotic organisation of themes, in his style and in his diction. We reproduce henceforth only those parts that carry information, also indirectly, on his activities in regard to his acquiring additional qualifications and other relevant facts. “My dear Mother, Though I have very little time …

Bunsen has offered me, that I could send my letters along with his Courier on every Tuesday so that I could send letter every fortnight … I can write to you in hurry only that I am quite fine here, that Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend and promised his help in all respect. I have then explained to him my situation, told him that my works, for which he is also interested, needed a long stay in London, and he assured me that I did find a friend in him and that he will take care for me like a father cared for a son. For two days I was in his land-house, his family is very pleasant and well educated ...

hopefully he finds something for me here. I do my best with Wilson, I cannot thereby rush things, because first of all I have to learn the language. I have shifted my lodging because of bugs and heat, but I am not satisfied yet and I pay 10 shilling per week. The contract with my Book-dealer (Buchhändler) is made and the prospectus will come out in the next months, simultaneously also “Wolkenbote” and hopefully a thick Sanskrit volume as well. I received a letter from Brockhaus and must pay the bill, I have already

paid him from Paris 45 fr., I send the bill to you with the request to pay the rest of the bill. Now wish you well my dear Mother ... Your deeply loving you Max” We stumbled again, especially when we read: “I can write to you in hurry only that I am quite fine here, that Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend and promised his help in all respect.” We have crosschecked. There had been no chance for these two people, Wilhelm Müller and Christian Charles Josias Bunsen to develop a friendship. We do not rule out a rather fleeting meeting of these two persons in 1817. Wilhelm Müller was

travelling Italy after completing his studies at Berlin and Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was Secretary to the Prussian Ambassador in Rome. What Friedrich Maximilian Müller wrote to his mother: “Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend” does not correspond to facts. His next letter is dated August 3, 1846, four pages. We recall a line from his first letter he wrote on June 13, 1846: “... Tomorrow morning I shall try again to meet Bunsen and Bar. von Cetto”. In his third letter he picks up the matter (highlighted by us):

“My dear mother, ...at present I find myself between two fires, or rather between two envoys. The Bavarian envoy, Bar. v. Cetto made newly offers, which were of course quite advantageous for me. 1000 Rth. Salary per annum, free board and lodging, so that I could save yearly about 800 Rth, and in addition he has promised to recommend me for a post in Bavaria. On the other hand Bunsen discouraged me very decisively taking expressly all and every responsibility on my behalf, advised me to rely upon him exclusively. He is really astonishingly friendly with

me, and I am very often at his house, morning, noon, evening. I am not sure about my decision, and trying to take more time. B. Is also very interested in the publication of the Veda, as this will suit also to his special studies, and he press me to publish in parts first. I also want to do this as early as possible, but this increases tremendously my work load. Wilson is also very helpful to me and has promised, if he can, to find a post for me in England, which is my highest goal as well; but it would need years and what should I eat and drink? ... Kiss to you, your Max” We put strong restrains upon us not to comment this letter further. His next

letter to his mother is dated August 25, 1846, five pages (highlighted by us): “Up till now it is going tolerably well with me. My work is progressing and I hope to send out my first child (Erstgeborenen) in the world. B. is extraordinarily friendly to me, I dine with him 1-2 times every week and he encourages me with new hopes. I have frankly explained to him about my predicament, and I believe, once my first volume is published, to get a scholarship from the Government of Prussia. I must stay here in England till I complete my work, and I assume that it would be in five years. Whether I return to Germany, that is

the question, as I feel so fine in this country that I would like stay here forever, if I could get a job here. Well, these are future perspectives, on which I am not much concerned about, on the whole it appears to me that I am nearing the port, if my pilot works well. I am invited again in the evening to his birth day. Professor Lepsius from Berlin is also here and he stays with his young wife with B.. He, Lepsius, owes everything to B.. He got him a scholarship for his studies, and then his travels to Italy, France and England, and ultimately to Egypt, and now he is at Berlin with a salary of 1500 Rth. I also have met Archdeacon Hare and

dined with him. He is a nice friendly old gentleman, with whom I can get on very well. Wilson is out of station for some time. I am still staying in Wardrobe Place where I feel quite well as I can dine with the family, quite good for 2 shillings only. He is a German Bookseller, who has married an English woman, so I have an opportunity to speak English, which goes now quite well. The offer by Cetto I had forwarded to Elze, who has unfortunately another assignment as a home-tutor. ... I am so to say quite fine ... The thing I long for is only quietness and certainty and a homely life with my loving mother. ... I hope, I can

request, that your letters can be sent with the Embassy-post, I shall let you know after clarifications. You must pay the bill of Brockhaus; ... Adieu, my dear, dear Mother, I think, I can send you a few lines next Tuesday regarding despatching letters. ... Keep nicely your health, as I also try to keep, and be happy of your life, like your Max.” Friedrich Maximilian Müller started writing to his mother about a “prospectus” from December 23, 1845 onwards. From Paris he wrote: “At the same time I now also turned to Berlin, wrote to Humboldt and Bopp, sent a detailed prospectus on my work, ...”.

Then once again in his last letter from Paris on May 29, 1846: “The prospectus of my work is going to be published in London in 5 languages. German, engl., French, Bengali and Sanskrit. It will be published by Samter in Königsberg.” Now we learn in September 1846 that he has given up this plan in London. But where is that “prospectus”. It is not available in any archive. Friedrich Maximilian Müller hears of a very alarming illness of his mother, and Christian Charles Josias Bunsen organises to send him as a courier to Berlin, enabling him to visit his mother. He is able to spend “several weeks” with his mother “and returned by

Berlin”, so it is said by Georgina Max Müller (p. 56). In our collection we find a letter to his mother from Berlin, dated October 27, 1846, long, trivial and scatter-brained as ever. But the handwriting is strikingly different. He writes another letter to his mother from Berlin without a date. Next he writes from London on December 1, 1846. These three letters are written in Latin handwriting style, and not in old German script. We are unable to explain the reason for it. We mention it as our duty of being a chronicler also. We can conclude from these three letters that Friedrich Maximilian Müller was absent in London for at least over two

months. On October 27, he replies to a letter of his mother, meaning that he left his mother in Chemnitz around midOctober. What did he do for one and half months in Berlin? We try to reconstruct his life in England putting two and two together. His postal carriage from Chemnitz arrived early in the morning at Leipzig. Date unknown. He made use of the short break at Leipzig to meet Victor Carus, Hermann Brockhaus, drank coffee with Dreschers, picked up some furs from Actuarius and then started for Dessau by train at half past eleven. Then, in Dessau (highlighted by us): “In the evening I had to go to theatre, where the Duchess

saw me and she called me next day through the family v.Rath. She was extremely friendly and conversed with me for almost an hour. She gave me also a letter of recommendation for the Prince Waldemar. I stayed there till Sunday noon at Dessau and arrived alone at Berlin, went to Hakes, where I am staying now”. He decides to extend his stay in Berlin to meet “Lepsius, Bopp, etc. also Humboldt, Schelling and Reimer”. From his second letter without a date we learn that he extended his stay further in Berlin because he had to do a lot to promote his project.

He continues (highlighted by us): “During the whole time I have had no rest, always running around, paying courtesy visits to ‘Geheimräthen und Ministern’. Humboldt has received me up with great friendliness and gives all support to get the Veda published in a manner that I get a benefit either. Therefore he has given my prospectus to the King who got it read out and has spoken graciously of it, and asked Humboldt to tell me that I should elaborate in a letter the religious significance of the Veda. This had to be done before anything else, and you know how much labour and time it has cost me this alone.

The King is unfortunately out of Berlin now, has however received my letter and has already sanctioned a notable amount to support the publication. Then I had that letter from the Duchess for the Prince Waldemar, which I could not submit yet as everybody here are on hunting now. And then I had to do a lot to procure the Sanskrit types that belong to the Academy, which I hope to get through mediation by Academicians (Brockh, Baumer, Schelling, Bopp were to be visited). All in all I am in best hope that my plans would succeed, and that I can go back to London in good spirits. Due to all these running around I

could not stay at Hakes, which was also otherwise not pleasant and now I stay in chamber garnie, in the Kanonierstrasse, very near to Krügers, Lepsius etc., in a civilised neighbourhood.” When he “arrived alone at Berlin”, he “went to Hakes, where I am staying now”. We learn now that Hakes were not staying “in a civilised neighbourhood.” We apologise for our being too dumbfounded to be able to comment this fabulous report to his mother excepting for the issue of “Sanskrit types”. We recall. Since 1805 Sanskrit types are accessible to the East India Company. These were used in

those rudimentary grammar books printed in Bengal. Henry Thomas Colebrooke used Sanskrit types in his Essay on the Veda. All in 1805. Friedrich Max Müller often referred to this essay, all by hearsay. He could not have read this Essay on the Veda yet. The reason is simple. He does not read English yet. Since 1819 the Sanskrit types were definitely in possession of the East India Company. We recall, the Director of the Mint at Calcutta, the Secretary to the “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, Horace Hyman Wilson, “prepared the first Sanskrit-English Dictionary (1819) from materials compiled by native

scholars, supplemented by his own researches.” In 1832 Oxford University selected him to become the first BodenProfessor of Sanskrit. We recall also, he “studied medicine at St. Thomas’s Hospital, and went out to India in 1808 as assistant-surgeon on the Bengal establishment of the British East India Company. His knowledge of metallurgy caused him to be attached to the mint at Calcutta.” In 1834 he published the second extended edition of the Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary. In 1836 he became the Chief Librarian to the East India Company in London. He shifted soon to London from Oxford, though he continued functioning as the Boden-Professor of Sanskrit at

Oxford. Yes, he is the same Horace Hyman Wilson whom Friedrich Maximilian Müller and Max Müller have repeatedly claimed to know very well. What should we believe when we read, what Friedrich Maximilian Müller wrote to his mother? “And then I had to do a lot to procure the Sanskrit types that belong to the Academy, which I hope to get through mediation by Academicians (Brockh, Baumer, Schelling, Bopp were to be visited). All in all I am in best hope that my plans would succeed, and that I can go back to London in good spirits.” We continue reading in the same letter

between many trivial matters and we read also: “I could not write and thank (for gifts and presents) yet, because I did not have time and peace of mind. However, I shall write from London to the Prince (Waldemar), Hagedorn and Emilie, though I cannot deny thereby my uneasiness.” From London Friedrich Maximilian Müller writes a short letter on December 1, 1846 (highlighted by us): “My dear Mother, If I write a short letter today, you must not be angry with me, though I am back here since Friday evening, I had to call on so many persons, had to take care of so many matters, that I did not even

time to resume my work. In Berlin too it was the same, especially the last days. ... Be now in good spirit and take care of your health, so that I won’t be compelled again becoming a courier in the post carriage, trains and steamers, though it has not done any harm to me. My return trip was via Ostende, not via Paris, as you thought. Berlin, Hannover, Cologne, Ostende, Dover, London. I could not tell you much of Berlin that might interest you excepting that I dined with Prince Waldemar. He is an extremely gentle cultured man. After dining we took our coffee in an Indian marquee sitting on carpet and tiger skin, all Indian style, but for the

long pipes and tobacco. Later I met him again on the street and accompanied him to Humboldt. ... All wishes to Krugs, to all four. Today I shall dine again with Bunsens. I was there the whole Sunday, he is friendly as ever. An now Adieu, my dear Mother, and do think of your Max next Sunday” His next letter he writes again in the old German script, it is a long one, on the first Xmas day, i.e. on December 25, 1846. He has completed his 23 years. The relevant information therein, we read, are (highlighted by us): “As I hoped from week to week to receive a letter from you, I also hoped

namely to communicate to you a rather quite pleasant news that I am about to getting a job, for which I am continuously negotiating since the end of November with increasing prospects of a happy end, and yet, without a definitive certainty. How dreadful such a situation is, I just cannot express to you, such a pending situation takes my ability to do any work, and I can tell you that I have thus lost the whole of the month December being solely occupied in writing official letters to the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company, paying visits, etc.. Take also into account, if this matter goes though, I shall draw

a salary 1000 Rtl per annum for doing nothing else than bringing out a Sanskrit work on behalf of the East India Company. How delightful such an assignment would be for me, you can easily imagine, and you can imagine as well of my ever anxiety about, whether or whether not. Bunsen and Wilson have done whatever was in their power, and the first one takes the liveliest interest in this matter, but such negotiations cannot be accelerated, and therefore one has to endure with patience. ... The Sunday passed away quietly, I dined with Bunsens. ... The rest of the month passed by, so to say, in hopes, anticipations, annoyances, delights,

and though it is possible that even today, while I am writing to you, I receive the decision, it can also be delayed till next year, it could entirely be shattered as well. Please don’t talk to none on this, and don’t paint my future in red shades, as it could become quite gray as well. Bunsen has proved to be extraordinarily friendly to me, and I believe, I can count on him in all respects. How I have deserved it, I really do not know, he has helped me out in situations which were rather easy for him in his position, but he has also helped me in situations that were unpleasant for him and called for overcomings. ... I am invited tonight by Wilson, larger

dinner party, English people celebrate Christmas only with colossal feeding, and for that one must possess also an English stomach.” ***** We take liberty to look a little ahead and report that Friedrich Maximilian Müller will be directly recruited by the East India Company in April 1847. He will be placed at the level of a “writer” on the pay list for his clerical job. He is 23 and half years old now. Being placed on the pay list of the East India Company he will earn £ 200 a year for at least 8 years, if he delivers the expected goods and does not get a promotion in between.

Of course, in all probability, he will climb later to the level of a “justifier”. Never before, he earned money for his living. In Leipzig and in Berlin he misused a scholarship for poor students. In Paris he depended on “Hagedorn”, Emilie and partly on his poor mother. Max Müller repeatedly justified in his “My Autobiography” why Friedrich Maximilian Müller never considered offering private lessons. He preferred to exploit his poor mother and visit acquainted families to get free meals. In London he was kept free, though at a low level – we remember the bugs, etc. - , by Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. But why did he do it? We keep aside those

explanations given by Max Müller. To review in quick motion we recall, to begin with, the letters of Friedrich Maximilian Müller from Paris to his mother (highlighted by us): “Anyway, I see more and more, how necessary it is that I go to London also for some time and I am preparing this with all my efforts. The life there is even more expensive than in Paris, I shall need monthly 300 fr. As I can still dispose over 450 rt., I shall take this amount for this purpose or I shall borrow it from Hagedorn or Emilie. It is essentially needed and I think it will bring good interest. I study hard now English,

converse daily one hour, which is also expensive and I think I could move in three months. For how long I shall stay in London is naturally still uncertain, however I hope something will come up there to add by copying Sanskrit or by private lessons.” “In any case I request you to send me 500 fr. to Paris through Eisenstück, who also has connections in London.” “My exact departure I cannot determine, as I am awaiting a letter from Hagedorn regarding lodging which I expect by the 7th. Thereafter I start straight to London, from there

Bar. v. Cetto has already advanced me thrice. Possibly I shall accept private lessons and I shall also earn money through Sanskrit assignments. ... How long I shall stay in London I do not know. I am however very pleased going there and shall stay as long as I can, even if I don’t get a job. Whatsoever, I shall not stay there over a year away from you and seeing you, even if it is just for an hour.” When he first met Christian Charles Josias Bunsen he was absolutely stranded in London. Obviously he could not “borrow it from Hagedorn or Emilie”. We won’t like to speculate over whether he had financial means to

stay in London for a fortnight, for a month or for a little longer. We also won’t like to speculate on the story “von Cetto”. We shall only focus on this issue from the perspective of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and put facts together. In 1846 Christian Charles Josias Bunsen prevails on the zenith of his power in London. He has access to all important personalities of the British Empire; he is rich and entertains an open House. His invitations were attractive not only for people living in London. Powerful persons need absolutely loyal subordinates, from lackey, body guards, then upwards to the personal secretaries. They must develop feelings for

absolutely loyal subordinates. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen knew, many educated Germans enviously were looking up to the prosperity of the Britons, thanks to their empire. Many of those were in search of opportunities to offer their “services” to participate in this extra profit of the Britons. Being a German in England, Christian Charles Josias Bunsen looks out to recruit as many loyal Germans around him as possible. All established power conscious personalities do so. In the very first meeting of them he recognizes that the future perspectives of Friedrich Maximilian Müller are rather gloomy and wretched. Why not give a try at a low level and recruit a helpless young

German to his folk? Then Christian Charles Josias Bunsen takes note that Friedrich Maximilian Müller was busy in copying handwritten MSS. in Sanskrit, as he claimed. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen knows all about the “educational policy” of the British Kingdom in occupied India. This was another supporting aspect to give a try at a low cost. This is practiced everywhere at many levels. Hire and fire. Though in the beginning Friedrich Maximilian Müller is kept at a mere subsistence level, he was imaginative enough to comprehend that he did meet a “heavy weight”. He could also

anticipate the “long arms” of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. He understood also instinctively that demands for more favours will not work. He felt secured that he was genuinely looked after as Christian Charles Josias Bunsen’s folk in London. This is the way of life in this culture, in all areas of this culture. Instead mentioning specifically other institutions that recruit likewise absolutely loyal persons we rather put together those bits of information from Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s letters to his mother. “Bunsen has offered me, that I could send my letters along with his Courier every Tuesday so that I could

send letter every fortnight …” “I can write to you in a hurry only that I am quite fine here, that Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend and promised his help in all respect. I have then explained to him my situation, told him that my works, for which he is also interested, needed a long stay in London, and he assured me that I did find a friend in him and that he will take care for me like a father cared for a son. For two days I was in his land-house, his family is very pleasant and well educated ... hopefully he finds something for me here. ...”

“... at present I find myself between two fires, or rather between two envoys. The Bavarian envoy, Bar. v. Cetto made newly offers, which were of course quite advantageous for me. 1000 Rth. Salary per annum, free board and lodging, so that I could save yearly about 800 Rth (His mother was receiving a pension of 50 Rtl per annum, isn’t it?), and in addition he promised to recommend me for a post in Bavaria. On the other hand Bunsen discouraged me very decisively taking expressly all and every responsibility on my behalf, advised me to rely upon him exclusively. He is really astonishingly friendly with me, and I am very often

at his house, morning, noon, evening. I am not sure about my decision, and trying to take more time. B. is also very interested in the publication of the Veda, as this will suit also to his special studies, and he presses me to publish in parts first. I also want to do this as early as possible, but this increases tremendously my work load.” “Up till now it is going tolerably well with me. My work is progressing and I hope to send out my first child (Erstgeborenen) in the world. B. is extraordinarily friendly to me, I dine with him 1-2 times every week and he encourages me with new hopes. I

have frankly explained to him about my predicament, and I believe, once my first volume is published, to get a scholarship from the Government of Prussia. ... I am invited again in the evening to his birth day. Professor Lepsius from Berlin is also here and he stays with his young wife with B.. He, Lepsius, owes everything to B.. He got him a scholarship for his studies, and then his travels to Italy, France and England, and ultimately to Egypt, and now he is at Berlin with a salary of 1500 Rth. ... I hope, I can request, that your letters can be sent with the Embassy-post, I shall let you know after clarifications.”

We have noted the last sentence. He instinctively knows that he has to keep his expectations at a low level. He registers the example of “Professor Lepsius from Berlin”, who was so much favoured by Christian Charles Josias Bunsen that he stayed “with his young wife with B.”. He has not been privileged yet to stay with B. He keeps his expectations at a low level and his hopes alive. The roles between Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and him are obviously clear. No complaints. Be patient till your turn comes. ***** Between the December 25, 1846 and April 15, 1847 he writes only twice to

his mother. These two letters carry very thin information. We translate only those parts of the letters which carry some new bits of information. The letter dated February 12, 1847 (highlighted by us): “What first of all concerns me, so I am still floating, though it appears to become a happy outcome, and I am in good hope to bring ‘an Indian Nabub’ to the world. ... I won’t accept if the offer if it is less than 1000 Rtl., either or. Please imagine, I am back to London after staying a few days within the walls of Oxford. I worked there in the library and thereby I came to know one of the most interesting and beautiful cities of

Europe. (A long description of Oxford follows.) ... What you write, that I owe Emilie my connection with Bunsen, it is indeed not so, as Bunsen hardly knew of her, also knew at that time, that he knew my father. Don’t discuss the matter further, as the issue is connected with something completely different. Now wish you well ... “Geduld, Geduld wenn`s Herz auch bricht, mit Ritter Bunsen hadern nicht! (Patience, Patience even when the heart breaks, not to be at odds with Knight Bunsen). Soon more, hopefully something good, from your Max." We recall our conclusion that the statement of Friedrich Maximilian

Müller to his mother: “Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend” is a lie. Now we come nearer to the truth, when we read: “What you write, that I owe Emilie my connection with Bunsen, it is indeed not so, as Bunsen hardly knew of her, also knew at that time, that he knew my father. Don’t discuss the matter further, as the issue is connected with something completely different.” The second letter dated March 24, 1847, a short one of three pages. Over a page he laments as he did not receive a letter from his mother. Then (highlighted by us): “There is nothing new here to report

apart from the fact that I have shifted again and that in a few days I shall most probably receive the official decision, by which I shall draw a salary of £200 a year, i.e. 1300 Thl., one can live properly with it and also save a little bit. It is however not yet finally decided, but it is almost certain. I just inform you with my request not to talk about it, as soon as the decision reaches me, you will know. This is all I can write today, if you love your Max.” We have titled this chapter: “What does Friedrich Maximilian Müller do in London?” We ascertain firstly that he does not add anything to his

knowledge excepting for learning the English language. It is almost irrelevant for our search to go into, how much English he learns in nine months in London. We know for certain that he was not yet able to read the essay by Henry Thomas Colebrooke on the Veda, nor use his Sanskrit-English-Grammar or those of others, available since 1805, nor consult Horace Hyman Wilson’s Sanskrit-English-Dictionary (1819). His English was still too poor. Instead it is relevant to ascertain that he does not learn the Sanskrit language in London. He could not have learnt this language also because there was none in London who knew the Sanskrit language.

Horace Hyman Wilson included, who held the Boden-Chair for Sanskrit at Oxford University. So, there was no risk for him to assume to be a “Sanskrit scholar from Germany”, to be the “Dr. Max Müller”, though he held an identity passport showing the name “Friedrich Maximilian Müller”. Who cares for identity passport of persons belonging to the folk of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in London in 1846? Secondly, he continues copying handwritten MSS. in Sanskrit that were kept by the East India Company in London. We do not know whether he applied his “innovation” in the method of coping, tracing words on transparent

paper. It is striking that Friedrich Maximilian Müller does not pretend presently to translate those Sanskrit manuscripts into a European language, as he did it in Berlin and in Paris telling the story: “I attend Schelling's course more diligently and with great interest; his philosophy has something Oriental about it. I am translating for him with great diligence.” and in Paris “on the third day after my arrival I was at the Bibliothèque Royale armed with a letter of introduction from Humboldt, and the very next day was already at work collating the MSS. of the Kathaka Upanishad.” Now he claims to collect the whole of

Rig-Veda, available in portions as handwritten MSS. in Berlin, Paris and London, copy them, put them in one edition and publish it in Sanskrit letters as the original Rig-Veda. But how should he be able to do it if he does not know the language in which the RigVeda is composed? Thirdly, he is in search of a living in London for several years. He does not know yet that his living in England was already fixed. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was satisfied with his new recruit. He guided him to becoming a mercenary of the British Kingdom, represented by the “Honourable Board of Directors” of the East India Company.

And he might not have known yet that once you are a mercenary of the British Kingdom or of any other Kingdom, or of any mighty organisation, you are a mercenary forever. His power of imagination was definitely developed to the extent to realise that many young enterprising Germans would have been jealous of him. As a foreigner and not having learnt English in the schools or elsewhere, he was recruited to serve the British Kingdom, though as a mercenary at the lowest level. He would now participate in the rich profits extracted from the people of Bharatavarsa. We are remembered here of Salomon Lefmann (1831–1912), Professor of

Indology at the Heidelberg University, who did hit the nail on the head describing the spirit of that time, which had led to dreams, writing these lines in his book “Franz Bopp, his life and his science, Berlin 1891–1897", (p. 11– 12): “While princes and peoples anxiously following the current events were directing their eyes to France, where a powerful war lord, having taken possession of the inheritance of the revolution, had thence seized power over Germany and Europe, the philosophers and scholars were looking at a Far East and at a far away past. All wisdom and all sciences, all art and culture, had

emerged there, there in the Orient, where the cradle of mankind had been. One had to take up oriental issues, study oriental antiquity, oriental philosophy, oriental languages – Hebrew, Arabic, Persian and – was anything impossible – the culture of Egypt, the language and literature of ancient India.” “Beside the wonderland Egypt, brought nearer through Napoleon’s campaign, its mysterious priestly wisdom and picture scripts, indeed even more than this and more than any other country of the world India captured the fantasy. What one knew was little, the more what one did believe, both was, however, enough to

push the devote enthusiasm of that time and of people to a climax. With the light of dawn, which had then just risen there, a cheerful morning was already shining to them promising the fulfilment of the most beautiful dreams and presentiments.” “Since hardly two decades the English had established their rule in India, had started their pioneering works there. The first reports of the Calcuttan society were received with true enthusiasm; everything that came from there was accepted with faithful reverence, and new revelations about the ‚oldest language and wisdom of mankind with motionless longing. A language

‘more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either’, as Sir William Jones said, and yet in near kinship with both...”

CHAPTER 13

FRIEDRICH MAXIMILIAN MÜLLER REACHES THE “SAFE HAVEN” CALLED “THE EAST INDIA COMPANY” On April 15, 1847 Max Müller writes a long letter (10 pages) to his mother beginning with the lines (highlighted by us): “The long battle is finally decided and I am, so to say, thoroughly through. I cannot believe yet that I

have really achieved at last, for which I aspired so long, autonomy and independency, and I realise very well that I have obtained much more than I deserved.” Overwhelmed he explains why the Directors of the East India Company insisted to take sole responsibility for his project, making all previous options obsolete. His explanations are not convincing. Whatsoever, the deal is made and he is relieved. It will be his duty now to submit to the company each year 50 sheets of manuscript, ready to print for £4 a sheet. The total number of the sheets will be 400. For eight years he is secured with an income of £ 200

per annum. His light work load could enable him to take up the job of a librarian at the British Museum too for another £150, but he has refused the offer because of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen’s advice. Thereafter he writes (highlighted by us): “What do you say now my dear Mother – is it not more than I ever could have expected! Was I also not right holding on up to the last moment, to put all my time, strength and money on one point and follow it up to the extreme! And think also that lately I did not have any pence left and that I was not able to earn myself in spite all efforts, and would

have been compelled to return to Germany if Bunsen would not have supported and helped me with words and deeds. It was indeed a bad time, and after it is over, I may express also. I saw, the decisive turning-point of my life arriving in spite of all uncertainties and was only a few steps away from my goal, yet I would not have been in a position to await, but be compelled to get back to Germany, to give up my favourite studies, if not entirely, but at least partly, earning my miserable living at a school or by giving private language-lessons.” This is followed by a sentimental

laudation on Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, on his diverse disappointments in regard to “Hagedorn”, etc. and thereafter, naturally, Friedrich Maximilian Müller in his disorganised mind, style and diction as ever. After this his honest and frank confession it might not be necessary to recall in details all his stories on his “Habilitation”, on his Professorships in Germany and on his epochal projects to be materialised in Petersburg, Berlin, London, etc., etc.. By the way, he does not speak of Baron Bunsen, or of Chevalier Bunsen, but simply of Bunsen, who he actually was. Only once he has titled him as “Ritter Bunsen” which literary will be “Knight Bunsen”,

but in the context it might mean: his “White Knight Savour Bunsen” or “Saviour Bunsen”. Friedrich Maximilian Müller is now 23 and half years old. It might not be necessary now to look back to his lifecareer even in a quick motion. We summarise only this much: He was not good at schools, he studied five semesters only at Leipzig University without taking a single degree, his command on his vernacular is modest as we know from his letters to his mother, about his Greek and Latin we do not know anything, he definitely did not learn the Sanskrit language, he did start learning French in Paris and English in

London. In April 1847 he has landed on the payroll of the East India Company at the level of a “Writer”. “Ensigns” and “Writers” used to be recruited for £ 200 per annum. He knows at the core of his heart how much he himself is worth. But we do not find any indication that he reflects on his contract with the East India Company. We try to comprehend, what it actually meant: It will be Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s duty to submit to the Company each year 50 sheets of manuscript, ready to print for £4 a sheet. The total number of the sheets will be 400. He must firstly copy from the “handwrittens” at best on a tracing paper, copy these copies on

separate paper and bring these copies to the type-setter of the Oxford University Press. Sanskrit characters casted in lead for setting are obviously in possession of the Oxford University Press. After the Sanskrit characters are set for printing from those copies of the “handwrittens” on separate paper, he is expected to read the proofs. After the final proofreading he will release the sheets for printing. It is the clerical job of a subordinate editor in the Oxford University Press. There was no question of translating the “handwrittens”. The outcome of this exercise would be the conversion of handwritings into printed letters for easy reading and for the facility of broader circulations of those Sanskrit texts.

We must confess we are dumfounded again. Not on the issue that neither Friedrich Maximilian Müller nor Max Müller ever reflected on the assignment for the next eight years. No. We do not find an acceptable answer to our question: Why should the East India Company spend robbed money from British India to get handwritten Sanskrit MSS. printed in Sanskrit letters in England? Printed Sanskrit texts were available in the book markets of British India, not only in Bengal, not only in Kolkata; and that at a much cheaper price. Many Sanskrit texts were even available by the end of the 18th Century in Kolkata. It is

documented that Henry Thomas Colebrooke used printed Sanskrit texts in his published Sanskrit-English grammar book as well as in his essay on the Vedas. It is also documented that he did bring copies of the Vedas to England as early as 1814 when he returned from British India. He was, as we know, a servant of the East India Company posted at various places in British India. It is also documented that the German Friedrich August Rosen (1805 – 1837), as one of the first who intended to publish the whole text of the Rig-Veda with a Latin translation, explanatory notes and a word index. He had learnt his Sanskrit from Franz Bopp, so it is

handed-down. We know Franz Bopp. In 1827 Friedrich August Rosen went to Paris, but did not learn the Sanskrit language from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. We know Antoine Léonard de Chézy also. Friedrich August Rosen preferred to study under Antoine Issac Silvestre de Sacy (1758 – 1838), who taught Arabic and Persian, who never claimed to have known Sanskrit. What does it mean? Well! Then Friedrich August Rosen went to London to find “rich treasure of Sanskrit manuscripts”. He also served the British Kingdom. He started his translation of Rig-Veda in 1830 from the manuscript brought to England by Henry

Thomas Colebrooke. Before Friedrich August Rosen could complete the translation, he died quite early when he was 32 years old. It is said that he succeeded to translate the first part of Rig-Veda. Being simple-minded searchers we naturally raise the simple question: How could Friedrich August Rosen accomplish the translation learning Sanskrit from Franz Bopp? No one answers our question. Well, we remember that Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary brought out by Horace Hyman Wilson in 1819. We think, it is worth mentioning that his parttranslation was printed in London in

1838. The publication was financed not by the East India Company, but by “the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland”. It was not dedicated to the Directors of the Broad of the East India Company. We remember that servant of the East India Company, Horace Hyman Wilson, that medical man serving in the mint of Kolkata, who returned from British India in 1832, to become the first BodenProfessor for Sanskrit at Oxford University. We know him. He was also engaged in translating the Rig-Veda. So it is said. It is not handed-down, whether he carried an original copy of Rig-Veda from Kolkata or depended on the same

source as Friedrich August Rosen. We take another young German, Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer (1805 – 1866) as our last example in this row. He studied philosophy and qualified himself in 1833 as university professor teaching philosophy at Berlin. He also studied Sanskrit under Franz Bopp. In 1839 he quitted from his professorship at Berlin to enter into the services of the East India Company and was sent to Kolkata. In 1841 he took over the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. In 1847, i.e. six years after he had taken over the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, he planned to begin translating the Rig-Veda. Obviously he was in

possession of a copy of the Rig-Veda. He was stopped by the East India Company in Kolkata because “Dr. Max Müller was already recruited to compile an edition of the Vedas in Sanskrit letters for Oxford University Press, assigned by the East India Company in London”. Quite surprised we note that Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer was, in comparison, far more qualified to try to accomplish the job even of a translation than “Dr. Max Müller”. Moreover, he was in Kolkata where he could listen to the sound of the language, and he could secure local help of the “Pandits” doing the translation.

Taking all these into account, we have doubts that the British Kingdom was ever genuinely interested in the Vedic and Sanskrit literature. So we get back again to our question: Why should the East India Company spend robbed money to get handwritten Sanskrit text of Rig-Veda printed in Sanskrit letters in England? We have to look out for a more reasonable motive. ***** In a little while we will proceed with the vita of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to completing our search finding out when, how, from whom and for how long he acquired those qualifications to write the book: “A HISTORY OF

ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE”. We take liberty to refer to our first Chapter. We did set out in our search to check the merit of a deliberation by Max Müller M.A. in 1859. Now it is once again time to get back to a few hard facts. As there are no references to sources – primary or secondary -- in that deliberation, we assumed on its face value that Max Müller M.A. was an all-time great scholar, a demigod. So we naturally want to know, how he became such a great scholar. Where, how, from whom, for how long did he acquire which of his qualifications. For our search there was the option of

two routes. Following the conventional practice we could have thoroughly studied all published writings of Max Müller M.A., read all printed matters on and around him and then come to a judgement on his scholarship. Thus we would have added just another expertise on the scholarship of Max Müller M.A. which would possibly be a thorough one. Most other expertises are based only on parts of his publications. We decided to take a route that is straight and simple, following the wisdom gained since ages: Before getting involved in tales one should know who tells the tales. Here too, we stick to the ancient wisdom: it is more

important to know who the person vis– a–vis is, what he does, by whom he is kept, than to get involved with what he is telling about or what others are telling about the same tale. This route is understandable and adaptable by scholars and non-scholars as well. We all know that “scholarship” does not just fall from the sky on the lap. Scholarship is attained and achieved by solid hard work. It begins with learning in the family, in the schools, in the institutions of higher learning and by doing search and research. We are continuously presenting the results of our toilsome search. Exemplarily we have reconstructed the

educational-career of Max Müller M.A. exclusively based on the primary sources providing exact references. We have accounted and integrated these results to his immediate and mediate socio-cultural environment. We have described how Friedrich Maximilian Müller commenced becoming a Dr. Max Müller in Berlin, then becoming a Sanskrit scholar from Germany in Paris without earning a single academic degree. Now he is establishing himself in London as Dr. Max Müller, from Germany, compiling the “real Rig-Veda” as a pioneer. Then we find him in his book: A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE - SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE

BRAHMINS as MAX MÜLLER M.A. in

1859. We all know all this has happened. We are unable to follow the general pattern of behaviour in the prevailing culture. Instead of shrugging our shoulders or just taking it easy, we raise questions, seek for answers, and think and rethink in as many contexts as possible to comprehend: How could all this happen that has happened? Thus we learn. Presently we raise a simpler question. What happened between 1846, when Friedrich Maximilian Müller ultimately decided fraudulently to go for “Dr. Max Müller”, and 1859, when the fraudulent Dr. Max Müller was transformed to

Max Müller M.A.? Apart from this aspect we are surprised to note that in 1847 Max Müller is absolutely happy reaching a “safe haven” in England, getting entry on the pay-roll of the East India Company though at the low end. Till 1847 he did not acquire the needed academic qualifications and did not attain knowledge by doing research in any of the subjects that were required to compose “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE - SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS”. So the question is

inevitable, when and how he attained scholarly knowledge in any of those subjects, after April 1847? *****

We apologise for using our simple, straight, undiplomatic, academically unusual language. And also for that we continuously and repeatedly refer to hard facts. Seemingly we repeat certain facts. It is not so. The repetitions of are not just repetitions; these facts open up other panoramas, other perspectives, in different contexts. They obtain more comprehensive meanings vis-a-vis new contexts. The present context is marked by April 15, 1847. We are reminded that a horde of uneducated primitive European Christian ruffians being confronted in Bharatavarsa with recitations of texts in social ceremonies in a language that was

not spoken in any social circle. The recitations reminded them of the happenings in their churches in a language that they could not follow either. Later the “writers”, the “justifiers” and the “local rulers” made the same experience. They were no less primitive though a little more educated. All of them characterized those recitations as “chanting” of “hymns” that could have resulted from revelation of some extraordinary person like Moses. The modern “languages” and “communications” scientists are not less primitive than the ruffians, writers, justifiers and rulers. They fail to realise that a script is a slim version of oral

recitations of an Original text. They also fail to realise that a script is a “book of knowledge”. We put two simple questions instead making a statement in this context. What gets lost when we read a text rather than listening to the text? And: What does it mean to read a text that cannot transmit the meanings of articulated 97 or 63 or 51 different sound-characters of the text? In course of time texts of a language are reproduced in written modus and in other remote media that were invented as secondary facilities of storage of knowledge. In our context we are focusing only on the undisputed fact that a script and other facilities of storage “follow” to preserve knowledge that is

expressed in a language, and it is not the other way around. It follows also that secondary facilities of storage is less reliable than the primary facility of storage in human memory, as it is systematically practiced in any “oral tradition”. There are no indications that the Vedic knowledge and the rich post-Vedic literature of Bharatavarsa stored in secondary media were known to the European Christians before the 16th Century. We are not willing to get into any discourses in our current context, when Europe came into being as Europe. We also would not like to get involved in discourses on Leif Ericson and on

Christopher Columbus. Instead, we would like to make a caesura at the 16th Century, and in regard to Bharatavarsa (India) we call it as “The Era of Vasco da Gama”. The European “history” or “culture” calls this period as an age of “discoveries” and of “enlightment”. We are inclined to call this as an era of inhuman relentless robbery, piracy, murderous assaults and genocide executed by two mighty imperial European institutions; the Vatican and the European Kingdom. This robbery and genocide was followed by uninterrupted sustained exploitation of the occupied foreign lands and their people till this

day. We are reminded of the “American Continent”, “Australia” and “New Zealand”. Since the beginning up to this day the goals of these imperial institutions have remained identical. The means and methods to achieve the goals might differ to some extent. The Vatican did it mainly by buying as many souls as possible. Roberto de Nobili stands as an example for the Vatican. The British Kingdom did it mainly by buying as many minds as possible. Warren Hastings and the “educational policy” executed by Thomas Babington Macaulay stand for it. We refer here to our Chapter Seven. The Britons won ultimately the European

War for monopoly of power also in Bharatavarsa (India). The Dutch were massacred and driven out first. The Portuguese and the French were reduced to a few enclaves. As a general rule the occupants of foreign lands do have to recruit local collaborators. The Britons did it in India more cleverly than the other powers. Their missionary zeal practiced the method of “divide and rule”. They started disintegrating local population from the mainstream by offering privileges and training facilities for the participation in the interest of the occupants at many different levels, beginning after the “Battle of Pallashy” in 1757 in a grand style. We recall, specifically the period since 1773:

“Robert Clive”, “Warren Hastings”, “the institutions of governor-general together with a Council of four members and the Supreme Court of Judicature”, “the Pandits in Kolkata”, “Charles Wilkins”, “William Jones”, “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, “Asiatick Researches”, “Henry Thomas Colebrooke“, “Horace Hayman Wilson” and so on. We have always focused on their social and educational backgrounds to reveal their primitive mind and thinking. We must rummage through the primary documents to put together all the bits of a puzzle to gain a clear picture of what happened since the beginning of “The

Era of Vasco da Gama” and how it happened. We ascertain also that everything was skilfully planned. “The Era of Vasco da Gama” is still going strong. The “historians” and other “scholars” have earned and are earning a lot of money by spreading false information on this Era. We must take an aside for clarification. There should not be any misunderstanding about our basic value judgement. Looking a little ahead we state that Horace Hayman Wilson will keep us busy for longer time. ***** We are sorry to confess that it was a torture to go through the pages of “My Autobiography” by “The Rt. Hon.

Professor F. Max Müller, KM”. Presently we search for reliable bits of information in the Chapters “Arrival in England” and “Early days at Oxford.” There is no chronology in these two chapters, nor in any other chapters in “My Autobiography”. No coherent information. There is no mention of April 1847. There is no mention of acquiring any academic and/or research qualifications. The pages are full of incoherent lose “talks” glorifying and celebrating only one soul: himself. We try to filter some reliable facts out of these deliberations. On page 192/193 we find the lines (highlighted by us):

“In all these researches no one took a livelier interest and encouraged me more than Bunsen. When some of my translations of the Vedic hymns seemed fairly satisfactory, I used to take them to him, ... .” What should be the meaning of “these researches” and of “some of my translations of the Vedic hymns”? On page 194/195 we come across (highlighted by us): “It is true there are several translations of the whole of the Rigveda, and their authors deserve the highest credit for what they have done. People have wondered why I

have not given one of them in my Sacred Books of the East. ... Bunsen’s name was power in England, and his patronage was the very best introduction that I could have had. It was no easy task to persuade the Board of Directors – all strictly practical and commercial men - to authorize so considerable an expenditure, merely to edit and print an old book that none of them could understand, and many of them had perhaps never even heard of. Bunsen pointed out what a disgrace it would be to them, if some other country than England published this edition of the Sacred Books of the Brahmanas. Professor Wilson,

Librarian of the Company, also gave my project his support ... after a long struggle ... it was settled that the East India Company were to bear the cost of printing the Veda ... to enable me to stay in London, ... I had already been working five years copying and collating ... “ Five years back from 1847 leads us to 1842, in Leipzig, isn’t it? Well! On page 203 we come to know from Max Müller: “One day when I called on Bunsen ... he said: ‘You must come with me to Oxford to the meeting of the British Association.’ This was 1847. ... I must at once sit down and write a paper. ...

on the Aryan and Aboriginal Languages of India. I assured him that this was quite beyond me. ... However Bunsen would take no refusal. ‘We must show them what we have done in Germany for the history and philosophy of language’ he said, ‘and I reckon on your help’. There was no escape, and to Oxford I had to go.” In the beginning of CHAPTER VII, “Early Days at Oxford” we read on page 210: “It had been settled that my edition of the Rig-veda should be printed at the Oxford University Press, and I found that I had often to go there to

superintend the printing. Not that the printers required much supervision, as I must say that the printing at the University Press was, and is, excellent – far better than anything I had known in Germany. In providing copy for a work of six volumes, each of 1000 pages, it was but natural that lapsus calami should occur from time to time.” On page 211/212 we can read: “Besides, I found that I was getting too gay in London, and in order to be able to devote my evenings to society, I had to get up and begin work soon after five. May, therefore, saw me established for the first time in Oxford, in a small room in Walton Street. The moving of my

books and papers from London did not take long. At that time my library could still be accommodated in my portmanteau”. We shall try to make up the chronology in a while. On page 214 we come to know: “... I received four pounds a sheet. This seemed to me then a large sum, though many a sheet took me at first more than a week to get ready, copy, collate, understand (?) and finally print. ... Poor as I was, I never had any cares about money, and when I began to publish in English journal, I had really more than I wanted. My first article in the Edinburgh Review

appeared in October, 1851.” In the whole chapter “Early Days at Oxford”, page 210 – 261, Max Müller did not give any other information on what he actually started doing in Oxford. Instead he lectured on Oxford University, on the affiliated colleges at Oxford, on professors and many other members, as if this was expected in an autobiography. On page 234 we get a glimpse of his personal sentiments and attitudes during those “Early Days at Oxford”: “I had naturally made it a rule at Oxford to stand aloof from the conflict of parties, whether academicals, theological or political.

I had my own work to do, and it did not seem to me good taste to obtrude my opinions, which naturally were different from those prevalent at Oxford. Most people like to wash their dirty linen among themselves; and though I talked over such matters with my friends who often consulted me, I did not feel called upon to join in the fray. I lived through several crises at Oxford, and though I had some intimate friends on either side, I remained throughout a looker on.” There is nothing more. There are no hints on his “several crises at Oxford”. How could he be compelled to live “several crises at Oxford” if he “remained throughout a looker on”?

Well! We take it as it has been reported by Max Müller. We wonder more on the issue that he lectured so much on Oxford’s educational whereabouts, though he was then not even a member of the academic community at Oxford. He had only to accomplish a clerical job in the Oxford University Press on behalf of the East India Company. We read the chapter once again. We won’t speculate over his motive. We cannot help thinking that Max Müller wanted us to believe that from the very “Early Days at Oxford” he was a part of the academic community there. *****

We shall continue our search. We have documented that after those five semesters at Leipzig, after July 1843 Friedrich Maximilian Müller did not add any scientific qualifications till the April 15, 1847. Does Dr. Max Müller acquire scientific qualifications between April 15, 1847 and October 1851, when his first “article in the Edinburgh Review appeared in October, 1851”? “My Autobiography” by Max Müller is not an adequate source on this issue. We get back to the more reliable source, to Friedrich Maximilian Müller‘s letters to his mother after the April 15, 1847. As before, we literarily translate the informative parts of his letters,

instead of editing and summarising their contents as Georgina Max Müller did. His next letter is dated May 10, and we come to know (highlighted by us): “ (...)This time from London I cannot write much, excepting that I have written letters to Bopp, Bunsen, Ritter, Rückert, Humboldt, Prince Waldemar and Duchess and a few I have yet to write. Mendelsohn I have heard several times – he has left again. I wrote a long letter to Emilie, but, as usual, I did not get a reply, I would very gladly see her here, as for the present my printing work will keep me very busy so that I cannot travel to Paris. (...).

On July 2, 1847 he writes (highlighted by us): “My dear Mother, Since yesterday back to London, I must give a few news on my activities and deeds, which had created a lot of strains on me which has affected my health wise and mentally and I feel exhausted. I was namely invited to a science congress that of the British Association that assembled this year at Oxford, it is one of the most exclusive congress in England, which you can see from the names of the members like Le Verrier, Ehrenberg v. Berlin, Prince v. Canino, Bunsen, Wilson etc.. Prince Albert

was there und all the scholars, aristocrats of England. I was in the committee of the ethnological section and offer a lecture in English. On the aboriginal Languages of India which was followed by a discussion. I went with Bunsen, who introduced me to Prince Albert, and I enjoyed quite well, though the endless discussions in English strained me to some extent. Now it has happened and I am convinced that it was quite helpful for me. The initiative to this came naturally again from Bunsen who has obviously decided to push me out in the world. He is and he remains the same and his friendship and his love makes me very happy

here. Madam Bunsen took a great deal of trouble to find a governess, but I do not know whether she already found one. Yesterday evening there was a large Egyptian dinner at Bunsens, I was naturally also there, as after long persuasions I have also started to line me up. Now I have also a room allotted in the East India House where I go to from 10 – 4 and work on my Veda. With the printing it is not moving forward as my letters have to be cut and the first volume will need another year, and once it starts moving, I shall earn 3 – 4 Pounds a week. Presently I live on the support of Bunsen, who keeps me in good books. (...) With hearty love,

your Max” Instead of our comments we recall here only the version Max Müller had given to the same episode. On page 203, “My Autobiography”, we came to know: “One day when I called on Bunsen ... he said : ‘You must come with me to Oxford to the meeting of the British Association.’ This was 1847. ... I must at once sit down and write a paper. ... on the Aryan and Aboriginal Languages of India. I assured him that this was quite beyond me. ... However Bunsen would take no refusal. ‘We must show them what we have done in Germany for the history and philosophy of language’ he said,

‘and I reckon on your help’. There was no escape, and to Oxford I had to go.” After Friedrich Maximilian Müller had ultimately decided to line up in the society of the scholars, aristocrats of England, was there any need to seek additional academic qualifications? We ascertain simply that he did not have time for it either. His next letter has the date, 13, but instead of a month only “summer” is mentioned. “My dear Mother, ... It is terribly hot in London. Prince Waldemar is now here and I have seen him often and had also a few good dinners with him. I send you the menu-card of the most

colossal one; this dinner was offered by the Directors of the East India Company, and five pounds were spent on each cover, which amounts to 35 thalers ... Lord John Ruhsel (we have checked our transcription) was there and the elite of the high society and Bunsen had again nothing else to do than eagerly to introduce me to people who could be beneficial for me. Day after tomorrow I shall meet Andersen at B., after all, so to say, the social events, dinners, drinks and being present strain the old man quite substantially and I shall beat a hasty retreat as soon as I can. Last week I called on B’s son in his county domicile, where it was very pleasant ;

he has made a rich match and lives happily. How is it with Brockhaus ; how are you all? Greet Krug ... Und good night, Your max” He next writes on August 12, 1847. “My dear Mother, You see from the address that I have changed my lodging again, which is here quite inconvenient.” Then many explanatory details, description of the new lodging, the costs, that practically he has two lodgings now, the new one and the East India House and so on. The prospects of printing are improving. He is satisfied and happy. His severe financial predicament is now being relieved. Then: “Bunsen offered to write to the King,

explain to him about me and request him to make an advance of 500 Rtl. for subscription copies and lo and behold, in 24 days the reply and money was there; now I have paid everything, have also written to Brockhaus referring to his bill and though not much is left, but I am free now and hope to receive money from the E.I.C. to live here in peace. ...” Long deliberations, formalities and gossips are followed. Then: „Hearty greetings to Auguste, and Krug. Let me not wait for long and write in details and keep your son in great, great love.” We take a note that the East India Company did not pay him any amount for

the period of April 15, to August 12, 1847. Arriving at this point we must raise an issue. So far nothing has been indicated on the modalities of his contract with the East India Company. Someone was definitely put in charge to judge whether Friedrich Maximilian Müller delivered the right goods before he could get a payment. Who was this instance? We do not know yet. Who of the East India Company could judge this at all? His next letter to his mother is a very long one and is dated September 1, 1847, written from Gravesend, which is not far away from London. “My dear Mother,

You see that I have fled from London, not very far, but far enough to breath fresh air.“ He does not earn while he was on holydays. But Bunsen insisted for a change. He himself would have preferred the sea-side. It would have been then even costlier. He is happy knowing that his mother was keeping good health and was enjoying her life. Then trivialities, formalities, reminiscences, also of Paris follow. We find in between bits of new information: “My box has naturally reached me safely as I had requested a friend of mine, Dr. Trithen, who was returning to London from Cairo, to pick it up

(from Paris), because, as Hagedorn wrote, he has no space for the Box. ...” Two pages later we get again some interesting information. Obviously he is back to London: “The whole life is a perpetual struggle and thereby immense riches are picked up forgetting the cost of thousand lives. London is said to be plastered with gold and with cadaver, but I believe, there is no place in the world that is more grandiose as this metropolis. My lodging is at present superb, my piano is a real blessing, and as soon as I get money, I shall buy one, as leasing is too expensive.

In the same house Dr. Trithen also resides, he is an orientalist too, whom I came to know in Paris, earlier he had a job in Petersburg. Furthermore a lot of “Sanskritists” in London have assembled around me, a small oriental colony, and international. Dr. Bergstedt, a Swede, Köllgren, a Finn, Abbe Bardelli, an Italian, Dr. Dillmann from Swabia, Dr. Spiegel from Bavaria, Dr Weber from Berlin.” He writes to his mother from London again on September 27, 1847. A relatively short letter: “My dear Mother, Your last letter reached me quite unexpectedly through Eisenstück or more rightly

through the city-post, and I was greatly delighted. ... In Summer I did complain sometimes, but things have improved and my work has gained speed. My life is naturally quite monotonous, but it does not harm, I am in a mood to work and I am independent, these are two things which are difficult to put together having my situation and I looked out for that. ... With lots of greetings and kisses, your Max” On November 9, 1847 he writes to his mother: “My dear Mother, Though I was rejoiced receiving a letter and to know that you had had a happy

birthday, I am unhappy to know that you suffered from headache and yet writing a letter to me. I know what headache means, they have not left me in England, though as a whole I feel fine here. Lately I lived on homeopathic ways, my stomach was very bad which compelled me to consult the doctor ...” Then he complains about high fees of doctors and of other things and is in despair in view of his debts. As in November the season of social meetings has started, he complains about diverse costs that occur availing those events. Thereafter (highlighted by us): “My time is completely absorbed by

my Veda and it is impossible to give private lessons after 6 hours of my work. Otherwise, my work is extremely pleasant and encouraging and I know that in 6 – 7 years it will bring rich harvest and thereby I am totally independent and therefore it is worth it. If I should think of marriage it appears to me quite odd and fortunately love has rather left me unperturbed yet, as my head and heart were full with other matters. Elze was recently in London and was already full of Dr. Max Müller. Later it would definitely be different, though the Doctor is as valuable as Professor and I have recommended a friend of mine for the post which

might help him. My pen is awful and it strikes. Now then, the best greeting to Krugs and many kisses for my dear Mother from her Max” His last letter of the year 1847 is dated December 11. It is a long letter of ten pages. “My dear Mother, Your loving birthday letter I kept closed, being a well-behaved son, till December 6, and I made myself extremely happy taking it in my hand and smelling often. Had I had smelt that you had put money in it, which you so difficultly saved, I would have been angry with you in advance, because you should not do it. ...”

He explains why it is not needed and remembers that she did it regularly. Then: “Now you have done it, my best thank for it, which I have already placed on my piano. My birthday passed here quietly and I felt awfully old being 24 years old. In order to drive away my bad mood I went to E.I.H. as usual and worked as much as I could, as this is the best way against spleen that one cannot avoid here in November weather accompanied by influenza. ... It is better now with me, but this is epidemic here as well as cholera. In a week 2300 people died, mostly belonging to the lower classes having no doctors and care. As the

doctor suggested that I should go for a change, Bunsen immediately offered ... . I declined, but I would not like to spend the winter here if can somehow arrange it. I have discussed the matter with Bunsen repeatedly about a possibility to work in Paris during the winter, but it will be difficult to decide or to get it through with the directors, before the first volume is published. How I would love to live with you for some time, but it is not possible now in London and Bunsen says, in our mutual interest it would definitely have adverse effect. It is really not because of costs ...” Long explanations follow. Then his plans to travel together with her or

meeting her in Paris. He expresses sorrow getting the news that Mendelsohn had expired. On birthday presents etc., then he requests to send a letter in a separate nicely written envelope to: A bon Exellence Le Chevalier Bunsen Ministre plenipotentiaire et Envege extraordinaire De la Majeste le Roi de Pruße A la Cour de Londres Berlin, Ministerium der auswärtigen Angelegenheiten. This is followed by daily niceties. “Yet now adieu my dear little Mother, lots of greetings and kisses from your

Max” We stumbled again. How should Christian Charles Josias Bunsen become all on a sudden “A bon Exellence Le Chevalier Bunsen” in London? Well! We are familiar with the bio-data of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. On January 27, 1848 he writes from a new address: London, King William Street Strand 47. He laments on difficulties while shifting. It is nearer to the residence of Bunsen, who also wished this move, he says. He sends also a plan of the new lodging. He suffered a lot from cold, cough, headaches, etc., London was a lazareth,

he says. The courier-service was over. The exchange of letters must be from now on by post. Thereafter reports on his societal obligation: calling on, drinking coffee, attending balls, nice looking amiable English girls in comparison to German and French. No ugly faces. He mentions also of buying new outfits, required for attending social events after he had decided to line up in the society of “the scholars, aristocrats of England”. His main work is, however, in East India House. He hopes to complete his first volume having 600 pages this year. Then he would take a break. He has written to “Hagedorn”

and Emilie. No replies. He curses England as it is not a good place for a poor German. His next letter is dated March 1, 1848. He was in Paris for 14 days partly to meet “Hagedorn” and partly to do some work in the “Bibliotheque Royal”. Nothing on how he managed the trip. Paris was in revolutionary unrest. He gives a long description on the revolutionary events in Paris based on his observations. He sides with the royals. His work was not done. He is happy to be in England again. His last two letters from London are without dates. Again reports on the events in France. In England revolutions

are executed institutionally, he says. He is only apprehensive that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen could be called back to Berlin. There he could do a lot of good things, but for him it would be a great loss. He feels sorry for “Hagedorn” who must have lost his wealth. Another chapter is closed. There is some dispute with Hermann Brockhaus on monetary matters. He closes his first letter without a date with the line: “When the weather improves, in spring and summer he will probably shift to Oxford, where he could work more conveniently and speedily being near to the printers. The gentlemen of

the E.I.C. want to see something for their money, but I have only my two hands, and not thousand like Vishnu. Greetings .... Your Max” Here also we do not get the information which of the “gentlemen of the E.I.C. want to see something for their money”. In the second letter without a date he indicates that he has practically left London. He writes a lot on unrest in Germany also. “If you write again and hopefully soon, then do address to: Dr. M. M. care of Mesrs. Williams & Norgate,

14 Henriette Street, Covent Garden. London. In thoughts embraces you wholeheartedly your Max” His next letter to his mother comes from Oxford dated May 21, 1848. ***** Max Müller‘s “Arrival in England” was in June 1846 as it is on record. He arrives in Oxford in May 1848. There is no indication that he qualified himself academically any further during his almost two years’ stay in London. He totally depended on Christian Charles Josias Bunsen becoming his foot-folk, who made use of him also. He was always a Prussian first and he had to

prevail at the top of the society of the Britons. For that he needed absolutely loyal persons who would also take the risk of writing and publishing on remote topics which he would not publish under his own name. We recall the episode: “One day when I called on Bunsen ... he said : ‘You must come with me to Oxford to the meeting of the British Association.’ This was 1847. ... I must at once sit down and write a paper. ... on the Aryan and Aboriginal Languages of India. I assured him that this was quite beyond me. ... However Bunsen would take no refusal. ‘We must show them what we have done in Germany for the history and philosophy of language’ he said,

‘and I reckon on your help’. There was no escape, and to Oxford I had to go.” After he obeyed to his order to write a paper on the “Aryan and Aboriginal Languages of India” or just on the “Aboriginal Languages of India” and delivered the paper under his guidance which could hit the nail on the head to show the Britons “what we have done in Germany for the history and philosophy of language” he climbed in Christian Charles Josias Bunsen’s esteem. Yet, he did not reach the height of “Professor Lepsius from Berlin is also here and he stays with his young wife

with B.. He, Lepsius, owes everything to B.. He got him a scholarship for his studies, and then his travels to Italy, France and England, and ultimately to Egypt, and now he is at Berlin with a salary of 1500 Rth.” It does not escape our attention that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen never offered him to stay at his residence. He shifted from one lodging to another always trying to improving the quality a little. One last aspect we must ascertain. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen trained him systematically to grow as his folk. He took care that he was properly clad and watched how he moved and conversed with his guests. Obviously he

introduced him as Dr. Max Müller, a Sanskrit scholar from Germany, who needed to learn the English language only. He also got him to read whatever was available in the market on Languages from India, on so-called “Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaften” (comparative linguistics) that Franz Bopp brought into existence and the performances offered by many other German “courtesans” to the services for the British Kingdom, thus participating in the rich booty brought home by the Britons. In these 23 months in London Max Müller gains confidence viewing the ignorance of the celebrities of the British

Association at Oxford. (highlighted by us):

We

recall

“I was namely invited to a science congress that of the British Association that assembled this year at Oxford, it is one of the most exclusive congress in England, which you can see from the names of the members like Le Verrier, Ehrenberg v. Berlin, Prince v. Canino, Bunsen, Wilson etc.. Prince Albert was there und all the scholars, aristocrats of England. I was in the committee of the ethnological section and offer a lecture in English. On the aboriginal Languages of India which was followed by a

discussion. I went with Bunsen, who introduced me to Prince Albert, and I enjoyed quite well, though the endless discussions in English strained me to some extent. Now it has happened and I am convinced that it was quite helpful for me. The initiative to this came naturally again from Bunsen who has obviously decided to push me out in the world.” In London Friedrich Maximilian Müller gets “his pushing out in the world”. In that event at Oxford he gets his finishing touches for his charlatanry. He has decided to go that way. He has evolved to a Sanskrit scholar in the British Kingdom. Is there any need acquiring

knowledge once one goes through as a Scholar in this culture? Anything more needed than acquiring marketing skills? Why should Friedrich Maximilian Müller develop scruples remembering that he has not learnt even to read a simple Sanskrit text if he can successfully market himself in scholarly circles as Sanskrit scholar. Probably he knows by now that also Horace Hayman Wilson, the Boden-Professor for Sanskrit at Oxford since 1832, did not know the Sanskrit language either. He is by now sly enough to evaluate the scenario of scholars in general, and the scenario of “orientalists” and “sanskritists”. All that he needed for his

swindles was just talking on fantastic perspectives of old Indian literature entertainingly. Talking he had practiced well. We have noted: Friedrich Maximilian Müller has not added anything academic in his carrier, no qualifications, no knowledge before his arrival at Oxford. We close this chapter, remembering “The Man Who Came to Dinner”, John Swinton. We take liberty of a break and discuss the epub and quality of European Sanskrit scholars.

CHAPTER 14

THE EUROPEAN SANSKRIT SCHOLARS AND THEIR SANSKRIT We get back to “Sanskrit” re-calling one truth: Whoever seeks entry to the Vedas today, he is confronted by thousands of printed products, all in European languages. Texts written in the Sanskrit language are edited mostly by European Christians. None of these editing “scholars” have learnt this ancient language called Sanskrit as they have tried to learn Greek, Latin or their own vernacular. Absolutely none.

It is universally so. By now it is universally undisputed that the Vedas are composed in the Vedic language. The Vedic language is older than the Vedic Script. The necessity for Vedic scripts was felt when the additional need of storage came up. Long before the Rishis and Sages of ancient times felt a need of a Vedic script as secondary storage, the Vedic knowledge was accumulated, verified, complimented and handeddown orally, practicing interpersonal communications to store the knowledge in human memory, so-to-say, in the human primary “hard disk”. It is undisputed as well that a language is a medium to transport knowledge. The language is not knowledge.

This oral tradition of Bharatavarsa still prevails. The Vedic texts or books are available exclusively in the oral tradition. Oral tradition means: Vedic knowledge is articulated in the Vedic language. This language has 97 different sounds. The sounds are essential to unfold the meaning of the whole. We recall our Chapters Seven and Eleven. Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas etc., mostly in Sanskrit, came later. The language Sanskrit has 63 different sounds. Oral tradition means: The Vedic and the Sanskrit books are repeatedly articulated by the learners realising gradually the whole meaning of the book and to store the undistorted books in memory

***** In our “Chapter One” we have substantiated why we call the dominating universal culture of our day “blond-blue-eyed-white-Christian.” The might-media-manipulation-industry makes us believe that the prevailing culture incorporates all thinkable positive attributes. Most of us have become victim of this permanent hammering. The method of this propaganda is rather primitive, but obviously extremely effective, after we have systematically internalised to define us, individually and collectively, in comparison to “the others” only. This has begun with the emergence of

Christian missions and it continues in our days. Christian missionaries have spread many concocted stories on NonChristians attributing all possible negative traits in all walk of their lives. This function of the Christian missionaries has been substantially taken over by “intellectual prostitutes” trained for this trade at prevalent “universities”. European “universities” were never seat of universal knowledge, were rigorous training centres for missionaries. European Christians run the mightmedia-manipulation-industry in all five continents. They are “white”, they adore “blond” and “blue eyes”. In the core of their heart they are deeply and primitively race conscious and brutal.

The “Alpha wolves” of these European Christians know very well that their “intellectual prostitutes” will sell vices as virtues if they are paid accordingly. And there are enough exploitationprofits since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama to create and engage enough “intellectual prostitutes”. It is only the quantitative exposure that matters in our days. It functions even to the extent that all vices are imputed to the “others” in the worst possible colours to veil own practiced vices and distract fellow-people from own misdeeds. European Christians make us believe that they bring peace, freedom and humanism to the others while they

produce 94 % of killing devices and deal with them. This functions only if we become victim of the might-mediamanipulation-industry and unable to remember the past. Remember not only yesterday and the day before yesterday. We must remember our past centuries as well. Those manipulating “intellectual prostitutes” of the Vatican and of the Anglo-Saxon-German tracks were not less ruthless, unscrupulous and vicious than our contemporaries. We recall Roberto de Nobili and William Jones as examples. The “intellectual prostitutes” are constantly in competition with each other to concoct fantastic stories and

selling their crafts and skills to consolidate and increase the power of prevailing rulers. They earn extremely well for their services. We remember that episode in our Chapter Eleven, William Jones dropping his friend being already on the passage to “America”. We recall our report. “He wanted the job of a judge in Kolkata. His chances of getting the job had almost faded away. It was agreed upon that he would take legal care for the inheritance of his friend from the West Virginia estate of about 50.000 $. Then he got the news that he would get the job in Kolkata. The conspicuous fee which had been agreed upon with

his friend was of no more interest to him. He put pen to paper and sold his soul to his supposed patron. The supposed patron was however only a supposed one. He therefore sold his soul a second time, after having learned who had been the real patron. He was no less a prostitute as the ‘intellectuals’ generally are in historical processes. We hope, in our quest we are not discriminating the socalled prostitutes.” In our Chapter Twelve we were again confronted with a situation in which we were forced to reveal our own value judgement in regard to the facts we spread out. We recall the situation:

“We also take a note of the fact, whatever information has been published and indiscriminately spread on Bharatavarsa since the 16th century; the costs were covered directly and indirectly either by the Vatican or by the East India Company. We are too simple minded persons to be able to deny the universal and ancient wisdom: ‘He who pays the piper, calls the tune.’ In our search we are trying to find out the tune that has been called by the Vatican or by the British Kingdom. In case of the Vatican it is propagated as missionary activities. Only missionary activities? Is that all? Did they only bring the ‘crucifix’ to the heathen?”

In case of the British Kingdom represented by the East India Company we cannot overlook two aspects beside war, murder, robbery and sustained exploitation: East India Company was never a ‘company’ for trades. It always represented Britain, its nobles and the crown, all inclusive. This is first. The second aspect is the fact that Britain was not less engaged in missionary activities than the Vatican. Britain did it at a more perverse level. The main thrust of the Vatican was to capture the ‘souls’ of the ‘heathens’, the ‘East India Company’ did it by brain-washing, by capturing the mind; and then converting a section of the population to courtesans and “intellectual prostitutes.”

Again we are reminded of “The Man Who Came to Dinner”. Here is the speech delivered by John Swinton, the doyen of the New York press corps, upon celebrating his retirement: “There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be

foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting of an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

***** We pick up the thread of our documentary narration and continue to rummage through the primary documents. We put together all the bits of a puzzle to gain a clear picture of what happened since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama, how it happened and how it developed up to our days. Everything was skilfully planned. The “historians” and other “scholars” do earn a lot of money by concocting and selling their stories shamelessly in competition. Nothing was and is left to chances. This is valid for the Vatican and for the European Kingdoms. Even such a trivial issue regarding a “writer” like Robert

Clive in Madras was decided in the “Board of Directors” of the East India Company at London. This is exemplary. We refer to our Chapter Eleven. Here we repeat the story in a nutshell. Robert Clive at Madras is moody, quarrelsome and violent. He prefers to be alone and is depressed. Once he attempts to commit suicide. In one of the recurring battles against the French in 1746 he is taken into captivity. He manages to flee with a few fellow prisoners. Thereafter he wants to fight rather than to continue as a clerk. The Board of Directors in London confirms his appointment as “Ensign” in writing on December 4, 1747 with the remark:

“Be sure to encourage Ensign Clive in his martial pursuits, according to his merit: any improvements he shall make therein shall be duly regarded by us.” As a “ruffian”, Robert Clive discovered his cunning, his till now dormant talent for intrigues, for the art of taking others for a ride and particularly for unscrupulous jingoism. A guérilla par excellence. He soon became a captain. All trivial matters were to be sanctioned by the Board of Directors before these were implemented in British India by local authority. The “Board of Directors” was nothing else than a covered-up extension of the rule of the British Kingdom till 1773. This “cover-

up” was given up by “The Regulating Act 1773” of the British Kingdom. Warren Hastings was appointed as 1st Governor-general of Fort William in Kolkata by “The Regulating Act 1773”. Warren Hastings developed missionary zeal in contrast to Robert Clive. Robert Clive was after the maximum of land taking and maximum protection of the own people. Warren Hastings was keen not to be outwitted by local “staffs” that factually run the “government business”. This is actually the day of foundation of “Indology” and all that developed with it. All these had little to do with scholarship. We review now in quick motion the

milestones erected by the British Kingdom in British India since 1773. Printing facilities in Bengal; promotion of the writer Charles Wilkins first to the head of printing facilities and then to the “Father of Sanskrit Literature”; recruitment of “educated” mercenaries as the “Pandits” in Kolkata”; William Jones’s Asiatick Society of Bengal, and Asiatick Researches; the “ensign” Alexander Hamilton who was the first to teach Sanskrit on European soil; the cobbler and shoemaker William Carey publishing the first Sanskrit grammar book in Kolkata; good for nothing Henry Thomas Colebrooke to an celebrated essayist on Rig-Veda; the German Friedrich von Schlegel setting the

tradition of learning Sanskrit all-byhimself in a few months; his followers the French Antoine Léonard de Chézy, the Germans Franz Bopp and August Wilhelm von Schlegel; the medical man as the mint specialist in Kolkata Horace Hayman Wilson publishing the first Sanskrit-English-Dictionary and thus standardising the meaning of Sanskrit words in English. We shall deal with this dictionary a little later. These are the persons who laid the foundation of “Indology” and the foundation of quite a few other so-called branches of science. None of them were properly educated and trained to accomplish anything that deserved to be

called “scholarly”. None of them learnt any Indian language. All of them claimed to have known the ancient language called Sanskrit. All of them sold their “skills” to the British Kingdom represented in British India by the East India Company to establish and consolidate the sustained inhuman exploitation of the people in India. But why did the British Kingdom, buy their “skills” spending robbed money? Warren Hastings is permitted to spend money to enable British clerks to learn workable Bengali language and some local social customs. The “writer” Charles Wilkins evolves to a printer of Bengali grammar casting Bengali

characters in lead. Warren Hastings gets permission to set Charles Wilkins to make an English version of his “Bhagvat-Geeta” in 1784 and to ask Charles Wilkins to claim that he did translate it from Sanskrit original. The Directors of the Board were not fools. They knew by 1773 that learning classical languages like Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Greek and Latin took years for individuals who were well trained in the schools, colleges and universities to be able to translate classics handed down in one of those languages. Those “Directors” knew very well that none of their staffs operating in Bengal had ever acquired such qualifications to perform the task. Quite

a few questions arise in this context. We now put together chronologically those activities that led to the new educational system in “British India” to begin with: The “Calcutta Madrassa” was founded as early as in 1781 to teach Arabic and Urdu; the “Asiatick Society” in 1784; “Asiatic Researches” in 1788; a call in Calcutta Gazette to “several Natives of Bengal” for a Bengali grammar and dictionary in 1789; the “Fort William College” in 1800 aiming to teach British individuals “Indian” languages. In the Fort William College the Department of “vernacular languages” like Bengali was headed by William

Carey (we know him), the Department of “Sanscrit” by Henry Thomas Colebrooke (we know him), the Department of “Hindustani language” by John Borthwick Gilchrist (1759 – 1841), the Department of Arabic by Lt. John Baillie (1772–1833). All Departments maintain a number of “Pandits” and “Munshis” “who made up the native element of the College staff”. John Borthwick Gilchrist arrives in 1782 as a surgeon at Kolkata being convinced that Persian was “India's” main language, sixteen years later he decides to learn “Hindustani” in order to communicate with the “Indian” soldiers,

later he becomes also an “Indigofarmer” in “India”. John Baillie arrives in 1791 as an “ensign”. In the following years till 1835 there have been vigorous controversies on two issues. Should the young Britons be trained in the “Fort William College” at Kolkata or already in Britain before they arrived in “India”? This is one. The other is: What should be the languagemedium for the new “educational institutions” in British India, Sanskrit, vernacular languages or English? In this phase Horace Hayman Wilson appears on the scene. In 1811 he is appointed as secretary to the “Asiatick Society” on the recommendation of

Henry Thomas Colebrooke. In 1813 he publishes the English translation of Kalidasa’s lyrical poem, the “Meghaduuta” (Cloud-Messenger) from the Sanskrit original, so is his claim. Yes, this is the same “Meghaduuta” (Cloud-Messenger) on which Friedrich Maximilian Müller and Max Müller have claimed often “working” about. Horace Hayman Wilson does never disclose how, from whom, for how long he learnt the Sanskrit language. We only know that he continues to fulfil his duties as the head of the Mint at Kolkata, additionally works as secretary to the “Asiatick Society” and looks after “Asiatick Researches”.

The controversies on the issue of training the young Britons as ruffians or writers were not actually dissolved. A parallel development commences. In 1806 the East India College is founded near London as a training establishment for writers (i.e. clerks) in service in the East India Company. On the other issue, controversies on the language-medium for the “educational institutions” in British India, there was a prolonged battle between two distinct interests. The policy makers of the British Kingdom represented by the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India Company are solely interested in the maximum profit to be extracted from the

occupied lands. This goal was to be implemented by the top servants of the Establishment on the ground, deliver the maximum profit and avoid unrest amongst the people in British India. We recall Warren Hastings, who felt the need of training for British ruffians and writers in order to improve communications with the local mercenaries of all ranks. We recall also that the top servants were permitted to keep their own “Pandits”, whose guidance they needed and to “hire and fire” them whenever necessary. The Establishment on the ground felt also the need of training to guide the local mercenaries of all ranks to ensure

sustained exploitation. On the need of training centres or other “educational” institutions there were no controversies between the policy makers and the establishment on the ground. Never on the goals. The goals were clearly defined as to ensure the obedience and loyalty of the mercenaries at all levels. But, how could this policy to be implemented most efficiently? The Britons speak English. The local mercenaries speak local languages. The Britons had their British habits. The local mercenaries had their local habits. The Britons were “masters”. The local mercenaries were “servants”. The British “masters” were also “servants” having their own pecking order of ranks.

The local mercenaries had their own pecking order as well leading to their “masters” and “servants”. In our context we have to deal with this complicated situation in regard to communications and adjustments at this elementary level. The establishment on the ground succeeds to convince the policy makers of the British Kingdom that the colloquial languages were as important as the no more spoken ancient language called Sanskrit. Many Sanskrit vocabularies were in use and the ancient literature was still mentally guiding the people. So it is argued. We remember that Warren Hastings encourages and supports Charles Wilkins to translate his

“Bhagvat-Geeta”. On October 4, 1784 he wrote a letter to Nathaniel Smith, we remember. The first two sentences of the letter were: “Sir, To you, as to the first member of the first commercial body, not only of the present age, but of all the known generations of mankind, I presume to offer, and to recommend through you, for an offering to the public, a very curious specimen of the Literature, the M, and Morality of the ancient Hindoos. It is an episodical extract from the ‘Mahabharat’, a most voluminous poem, affirmed to have been written upwards of four thousand years ago, by Kreeshna

Dwypayen Veias, a learned Bramin; to whom is also attributed the compilation of ‘The Four Vedes or Bedes,’ the only existing original scriptures of the religion of Brahma ; and the composition of all the pooranas, which are to this day taught in their schools, and venerated as poems of divine inspiration.” Charles Wilkins confessed, however, in “The translator’s preface”: “The Translator has not as yet had leisure to read any part of those ancient scriptures. He is told, that a very few of the original number of chapters are now to be found, and that the study of these is so difficult, that there are but

few men in Banaris who understand any part of them.” Warren Hastings thus laid the groundwork for what is later deceptively called the “colonization”. We call this straightforwardly the Christianization of the culture in Bharatavarsa. Though Charles Wilkins did not have an opportunity to learn that language called Sanskrit, he was permitted to publish a “translated” version of “Srimad Bhagavat-Gita”. His publication was based entirely on his understandings of his “Pandits”. Again we explain the “stage”, the concrete situation at elementary level.

Charles Wilkins expresses in his vernacular to his “Pandits” his intention. He is unable to check, what his “Pandits” understood. We know that English was a foreign language for the “Pandits” and that there were no schools to learn English. The “Pandits” had to pick up “workable” English language to sell their service. Charles Wilkins is unable to examine the quality of whatever his “Pandits” delivered him. He has to try to understand the contents delivered in “picked-up-workable English” and then translate into his vernacular. We know all about the intellectual ability of Charles Wilkins. Besides he was having the usual Christian mind only. What else?

Assuming that the Directors of the East India Company were not fools and the British Kingdom was after the maximum profit by exploitation we cannot spare the modern scholars the question why Warren Hastings was permitted to spend money, on a Charles Wilkins publishing something which could not even be worth the paper. We remind the modern scholars that they have yet to explain why Sir William upgraded this primitive Christian soul called Charles Wilkins to a great “Sanskrit scholar” as early as in 1784, in order to position himself as the second greatest “Sanskrit scholar”. This appraisal is valid up to this day.

We all know by now that Sir William himself was only a little less primitive than Charles Wilkins. We all know also that thereafter many self-designed “Sanskrit scholars” translate indiscriminately Sanskrit texts without the slightest qualm. Horace Hayman Wilson is encouraged and then permitted to compile the first Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary and publish it in Kolkata in 1819 as we have mentioned earlier. How did he do it? Instead of our comments we reproduce the presentation of the “dictionary” in original.

This page calls for repeated reading and attentive understanding. We have done this exercise. It is a dictionary, Sanskrit and English: Translated, Amended and Enlarged, from an original compilation prepared (now comes the part which is difficult to read on the original page because of the use of clumsy letters) “By learned natives” for the College of Fort William. What does this actually mean? Before we seek an answer to our question, we would like to add the following information. The dictionary consists of 1135 pages. It is dedicated to the Directors of “The United East India Company” by their individual names. We read also what

HORACE HAYMAN WILSON wrote to the Directors of “The United East India Company” (highlighted by us): “Honourable Sirs, I have taken the liberty of dedicating to you the following Sanskrit and English Dictionary, as a public mark of the respect which I entertain for your Honourable Court, and as public acknowledgement of those obligations which I owe to several of its individual members. Whatever may be the merits of the dictionary now published, it may claim at least the credit of purposed utility, and of a design to promote

those measures, by which the welfare and happiness of British India can best be ascertained and secured. It is an assertion that scarcely requires proof, that the Hindu population of these extensive realms can be understood only through the medium of the Sanskrit language: it alone furnishes us with the master spring of all their actions and passions, their prejudices and their errors, and enables us to appreciate their actions and passions, their vices or their worth: without this knowledge therefore the kindest intentions and wisest designs for their happiness and amelioration,

will often prove, as they have often proved, abortive, and even where successful, will attain success only by a prodigal waste of time and exertion, occasioned by the wrong direction of laudable zeal, and the idle opposition of unnecessary doubts and absurd misapprehension. Where the happiness of millions is at stake, it needs no force of language to urge the weight of every measure, that in any degree contributes to so important an end; still less must it be necessary, when as in the present instance, events as unexampled as wonderful have made that happiness our peculiar duty, and have

committed the destinies of India, to the care of association of Englishmen, with whose good name as well as commercial interests your Honourable Court is entrusted. The value of the Sanskrit language, as an object of literary curiosity, is of no moment, compared with its importance in the light in which it must be viewed, by all who duly consider its connexion with the welfare of this country: in itself however it is not undeserving of consideration, and patronage bestowed by the ruling power of a state on the liberal studies of its subjects, is not without the usefulness

or reward: on both accounts, therefore, I am confident, you will think the study of the Sanskrit language in the Company’s Indian territories, entitled to your protection and encouragement, and will not be displeased with the attempt to facilitate its acquirement, to which I have presumed to prefix your names. I have the honour HONOURABLE SIRS,

to

be,

Your most obedient Servant, H. H. Wilson. Calcutta, October 1819” ***** We get back to our issue, training and

education in British India. The College of Fort William in Kolkata was founded in 1800 to train the British ruffians, writers, justifiers and rulers to teach Indian languages and all that went with it. Under British heads a few “learned natives”, i. e. “Pandits”, are hired to teach local languages as well as the Sanskrit language. For the sake of their mutual communication those “learned natives” were asked to make a list of Sanskrit words and translate them into English. Were those “learned natives” learned enough to deliver the goods for that they were paid for? Who is to judge? How to judge? Let it be at these three questions.

The fact is that the buyer had accepted the delivered goods, irrespective of their genuine quality. This list of words was gradually complemented always according to needs of communication of the employer. By 1819 thus gradually the complemented list had grown to the satisfaction of the employer for their purposes. The employer was the British Kingdom, represented by the East India Company in British India. Those “learned natives” accomplished that work, but one of the most obedient Servant of the East India Company, Horace Hayman Wilson appropriated the work and published it under his name in Kolkata: The first “A DICTIONARY, SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH. AN ORIGINAL

COMPILATION PREPARED BY LEARNED NATIVES FOR THE COLLEGE OF FORT WILLIAM.” We keep aside the morality

of this appropriation, though plagiarism was not at all unknown as an improper act in England and in Europe. The purpose is explicitly articulated by Horace Hayman Wilson: “What ever may be the merits of the dictionary now published, it may claim at least the credit of purposed utility, and of a design to promote those measures, by which the welfare and happiness of British India can best be ascertained and secured.” Apart from this short-ranged purpose we have to take the long-range effect of this

dictionary into account. It becomes the foundation of translations of “Sanskrit Texts” into English, thus also the foundation of translations into all other European languages. In this dictionary the meanings of Sanskrit literature is reduced in a comparably primitive language called English. Meanings that could not be transported into the English language are systematically excluded by this standardisation, by the bias of the prevailing culture of the Britons that is expressed in their language called English. The English language as all other modern European languages is filled with Christian belief and characterised by Christianity. Whatever knowledge the mankind

accumulated, if it was beyond the reach of Christian minds, becomes thus nonexistent. This is the main mechanism which we have characterised as the Christianisation of the ancient culture of Bharatavarsa; nothing less and nothing more. We recall, William Jones, the second greatest Sanskrit scholar of that time, today’s demigod, implores Charles Wilkins from the very beginning to compile a Sanskrit-English-Dictionary with the help of the “Pandits” at Kolkata as early as 1784. We know, Charles Wilkins could not deliver the dictionary. We are reminded of Friedrich von

Schlegel. As early as on the 14th of August, 1803 he lets his brother August von Schlegel know: “I have worked on Sanskrit without interruption and by now I have reached a fairly solid ground. I have already a heap as high as a hand’s breadth of manuscript which I have copied. I am now copying the second dictionary.” What was he really copying? How could he copy “the second dictionary” whereas the first one was yet to come? In 1813 Franz Bopp writes from Paris, we remember, to his academic mentor Professor Windischmann: “...ever since I am here I am busy only with Arabic, because I was

advised to acquire some skill in it before I go for other oriental languages. After gaining some skill in the Arabic I shall begin with Persian, so I hope after 14 days to be able to read light prose in this language; ...Only the Indian languages are not taught here, and nobody studies them. I shall be the only one in the summer, who is engaged with them. I think indeed to begin with Persian and Sanskrit at the same time during the summer.” And: “The German language is so very much suitable to render faithfully the original Indian thoughts. And I want to contribute my utmost that it (Ramayana) can be read in German

language. I am already now capable to translate the first part, available in English translation. The second part is said also to appear soon. ... Without a translation, even if it were a very free one, I am unable to translate any Indian manuscript yet, Chézy, either, hardly can, although he is engaged in that 6 years longer.” Thereafter: “I have devised an alphabet by which one can reproduce the system of Sanskrit alphabetic characters in a pure form, ... Before I write the grammar, I presumably should make my system of characters known and for this purpose I want to take the Bhagawatgita, the most beautiful

parts of which you already know from Schlegel’s (Friedrich von) translation, and publish the (original) text with a very literal translation in Latin, and my brother will probably make the Dewanagari alphabetic characters for a few pages.” Those “learned natives” delivered something between 1800 and 1819 which is not possible at all. That is a Sanskrit-English-Dictionary. We mentioned earlier that the “Chhando Bhasha”, the language of the Vedas, having 97, the“Laukika Bhasha”, the real Sanskrit language having 63/64 and the “Devanagari Bhasha”, having 51 soundcharacters. These three languages with

Devanagari characters share a common particular aspect. Even the shortest sounds, the syllables, are formed according to strict rules. And their importance and meanings differ. The main syllables, the roots, so-to-speak, unfold into words in which other syllables join them, at the beginning or at the end or both ways. The meaning of the “root-syllables” varies also according to the way words are being formed. Without knowledge of the single syllables, of their manifold combinations and of the grammar rules, the words cannot be understood. Even identical words have a different meaning according to their position within the sentence and to the meaning of the

sentence as a whole. The meaning of the sentence depends again from the meaning of the whole paragraph. The meaning of the paragraph enfolds from the whole text. This is why traditionally no dictionaries existed in these languages. Instead of dictionaries there are comprehensive grammar books. How the seeds (root-syllables) develop into a tree with ramifications (the meaning of the whole paragraph and of the whole text), is something which cannot be learned the quick way. Even grammar books do not arise from nil. The coming into existence of comprehensive grammar books presupposes

comprehensive literary, metaphysical and scientific books of knowledge. And not the other way round. We refer to our Chapters seven and eleven for details. ***** We get back to the controversies on the language-medium for the “educational institutions” in British India. The establishment on the ground propagates Sanskrit as medium of education. After the coupe with the first Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary the Sanskrit College of Kolkata starts functioning in 1824. Those Britons who are in favour of English medium of education, obtained a boost from the “Bengal Mafia” lead by Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772–1833)

and then by Dwarkanath Thakur, whom we already know. Ram Mohan Roy was taken on the payroll of the East India Company in 1803 when he was 31 years old. He started as a writer, climbed to private clerk (Munshi) to Thomas Woodford who was Registrar of the Appellate Court at Murshidabad in the North of Bengal, promoted ultimately to a “Raja”, a title created by the East India Company. He collaborated with William Carey (we know him), and was styled and propagated by the Britons to be a reformer of the “educational system” in British India for the “Indian” people. “Intellectual prostitutes” all over. The

“Bengal Mafia” thus secures an edge over the rest in British India in the competition of collaborators. Yet the Sanskrit College of Kolkata started functioning in 1824. It seemed, the “Bengal Mafia” favouring English as medium for “education” was defeated. In 1832, Horace Hayman Wilson leaves Kolkata to join Oxford University as the first Boden-Professor for Sanskrit. Before leaving Kolkata he brings out the second edition of his “Sanskrit and English” dictionary, which was actually not his, as we know. Before we add our comments to the second edition, we reproduce the texts of the title pages only for more convenient comparison:

Here is the dedication that follows on the next page in the first edition in 1819.

Now we reproduce the texts of the title page of the second edition and thereafter the dedication.

Then the dedication that comes on the next page. “To HENRY THOMAS COLEBROOKE, Esq. Director of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, And for many years PRESIDENT OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL, to whose aid and encouragement THE SANSKRIT DICTIONARY owed its first publication, and by whose unequalled labour, and unrivalled acquirements in Sanskrit, THE LANGUAGE, LAWS, RELIGION, LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY OF THE HINDUS, have been rendered accessible to European enquiry. THIS WORK is inscribed as a Tribute of

Acknowledgement,

Admiration,

and

Esteem, by H. H. WILSON”.

We take note of the differences between the two editions of the “dictionary”. Horace Hayman Wilson does not need specific introduction: “ASSISTANT SURGEON IN THE HONOURABLE EAST INDIA COMPANY’S SERVICE, AND SECRETARY TO THE ASIATIC SOCIETY”.

He has just grown to H. H. Wilson. In the second edition there is no mention of the Board of Directors in London. There is no dedication to the members of the Board. The second edition is “Greatly extended and published under the Sanction of the General Committee of Public Instruction in Bengal”. And: “Printed at the Education Press in Kolkata in 1832”.

The second edition is dedicated overwhelmingly to HENRY THOMAS COLEBROOKE. The preface is also new. H. H. Wilson lets us know (highlighted by us): “The extensive cultivation of Sanscrit, during late years in Europe, has occasioned a demand for the Dictionary of that language, published in 1819, greater than was anticipated, and greater than it perhaps deserved. Copies of it are in consequence procurable with difficulty. It was my intention to have delayed the publication of a second edition,

until I was prepared to offer to those engaged in the study, comprehending men of mature intellect, and eminent amongst the most distinguished scholars of the age, a work constructed on an entirely different model, and one better adapted than a mere alphabetical complication to learned and philosophical research. Other duties and occupations have prevented the accomplishment of this object, beyond the accumulation of materials. In the mean while, years are passing away, and the vain hope of putting forth a perfect performance may prevent the completion of a useful though more humble task. …

Notwithstanding these considerations, however, I might still have hesitated to engage in a reprint of the Dictionary upon the original plan, had it not been thought desirable, by the Committee of Public Instruction in Bengal, to provide with as little delay as possible, the assistance it was calculated to afford to the conjoint acquirement of Sanscrit and English in the Native colleges under their superintendence: such a combination being in their opinion of the first importance in those seminaries where Hindu youths are reared, not only for the diffusion of the English language, but for the

communication of an elementary knowledge of Sanscrit to numbers now precluded from an attainment, which is essentially necessary to the Natives themselves, for a critical knowledge of the languages which they speak, and for the correct application of them to written composition.” Seemingly the controversies on the language-medium for the “educational institutions” in British India were decided in favour of the Sanskrit language. The establishment on the ground were permitted to extend educational institutions without specific sanctions. The “Bengal-Mafia” was

defeated. But then, Thomas Babington Macaulay appeared on the scene in 1834. We have already introduced him. We remember: Thomas Babington Macaulay, a precocious offspring of a family with missionary zeal, high school, takes his B.A: from the Trinity College, Cambridge. He is then 22 years old. He studies law, is known as an “endless orator”. All the time he worked parttime. He has to care for the whole family since he is 26 years old because his father had lost his property through bad business deals. His annual earnings grow in course of time gradually to £ 900. In 1830, he is

elected to the House of Commons for the Whigs in Calne, a safe Whig constituency. Though a mighty speaker there, he takes also the appointment as Secretary to the “Board of Control” of the East India Company. He climbs rapidly in his career. His earnings go up to £ 1500. In the House of Commons he tinkers at a bill, whereby he earns the lucrative position of a legal adviser to the “Supreme Council of India” at Kolkata. His income is increased from £ 1500 to £ 10000. For details we refer to LIES WITH LONG LEGS. In Kolkata he introduces on February 2, 1835 a draft of the education programme for “colonized” India and let his

deliberation passed on March 7, 1835, “The new educational policy”. We recall the essential parts (highlighted by us): “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great

mass of the population.” The “Bengal-Mafia” hails. It does not recognise, or does not bother about, that the new “education programme” is a thorough programme of cultural cloning. The “Bengal Mafia” helps the British occupants to implement this educational programme and thus gains power and riches being cloned like the Britons. Not exactly like the Britons. They of course remain “Indian in blood and colour”. We remember Thomas Babington Macaulay’s letter dated October 12, 1836 to his father as well (highlighted by us): “It is my firm belief that, if our plan of education is followed up, there will not be a single idolater among

respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect.” ***** These two quotes have kept us long enough in reflections. The policy of brainwashing or of cultural cloning has been successfully implemented in British India as a “modern educational system”. We remember his written statements. We reproduce the major points (highlighted by us):

Ø “I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.” Ø “But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works.” Ø “I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic

superiority of literature, is, admitted.”

the Western indeed, fully

Ø “In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class.” Ø “Of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be most useful to our native subjects.” Ø “We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices.” Ø “It is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars.”

Yet, Thomas Babington Macaulay did not cut all those expenditures on Asiatick Society, Asiatick Researches, Sanskrit “Pandits” and the likes. He knew that he had all powers to cut those expenditures. Why did Thomas Babington Macaulay not cut all those expenditures? He was not a fool. Within the limits of his missionary blinkers and strong prejudices he knew how to exercise power. Keeping this question in mind, we feel an urge of taking an immediate aside, first looking back, and then to look a little ahead and apologise for this urge. ***** All ruling systems must recruit persons

from amongst those who are ruled, who do not belong to the rulers. They have to be found, hired, trained and rewarded according to a pecking order. The pecking order can begin at the bottom with slaves, with mercenaries and ending with “knighthood” and the kinds. This is the process of making of a ruling class by the rulers. The ruling class must develop a system of disintegrating a part of the whole section that is being ruled. This system of disintegration begins at one end with “hire and fire” and ends with “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in

tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” This mechanism of exercising power is generally called “divide and rule”. We are not getting into a discussion on the merits or on the curses of creating “scholarly terms” to hide concrete hard facts concerning real life. We would rather look back in the history of Bharatavarsa in a very quick motion. There was definitely a caesura in the existing social system of Bharatavarsa, say, around 2600 years ago when “Jainism” and “Buddhism” came into being. The Vedas, the Upanishads, the Brahmanas, the Sutras and all the others are pre-Jainic and pre-Buddhistic. The

high standard of this literature presupposed an educational system that kept the society at a high level of intellectual and material affluence. The Macedonian ruffian Alexander knew about the material affluence. The philosophy of the Jains and of the Buddhists altered the organisation of social life, thereby creating their own educational system which differed from that of the Vedic period, a period called sanatana dharma. There were definitely parallel developments and competitions between these two educational systems. Yet, the people of Bharatavarsa continued to produce material affluence

which attracted the Muslim robbers from the West. In course of time Muslim robbers were transformed into Muslim migrants establishing Muslim rules in many areas of Bharatavarsa. They also needed their own educational system. We put at this stage of development the second caesura, because the Muslim rule had a distinctly different quality than that of the ruling systems prior to it. There are two major aspects of difference to be reckoned with. Muslims were foreigners. This is one. Then, the Muslim social system was based on the belief in revelation. Belief in revelation began with Moses. All accumulated knowledge in the history of

mankind, prior to Moses, was declared to be inferior or not relevant for the followers of Moses. Knowledge was substituted by belief. Beyond the script “The Old Testament” was nothing that was relevant anymore. Jesus Christ and “The New Testament” followed. The God revealed also to Mohamed the truth, the only truth, revealed by God in the tradition of Moses. Mohamed’s Koran as script was the last instance of truth in all walks of life. Koran was and is all comprehensive. Nothing else counts really for the believers. This basic postulation of intolerance was unknown to the people of Bharatavarsa. Their life was based on knowledge, not on belief. They were keen to know all

about the Cosmos. All of their findings are handed down as knowledge belonging to humankind. The Muslim rulers were too busy with themselves to remain in power, also fighting their own siblings. They did not find time to interfere with or to fight against prevailing ways of life, against philosophies that went against their belief in God and in Mohamed. Their missionary activities were secondary, were reduced to the needed recruitment of non-Muslim mercenaries to consolidate and to exercise their rule. These Muslim rulers did never intend to go back home with booties. They were gradually integrated in Bharatavarsa. In

spite of coexisting different educational systems, the people continued to produce material affluence which attracted Christian robbers beginning in the 16.Century A.D. We differentiate this stage of development and put the third caesura. We give this third caesura also a name: “The Era of Vasco da Gama”, because of a new quality. These Christian robbers were not emigrants like the Thomas-Christians arriving much earlier in the South of Bharatavarsa, who got fully integrated. These Christian robbers were on explicitly declared War. They introduced in Bharatavarsa and also elsewhere the policy of sustained

exploitation of foreign Lands and people as continuation of the war. They were not migrants. Besides many of their crimes they also chalked out and executed plans and programmes like that of Thomas Babington Macaulay in the 19th century (highlighted by us): “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” Now we leave the 19th Century A.D. and look a little ahead. In 1947 “British

India” was divided in parts before the British Kingdom quitted from Bharatavarsa. In 1950 “The Republic of India” came into being covering the major territory of the British India. The people of this territory took over power ending centuries of foreign domination, so it is recorded and propagated by modern historians. The next caesura was due at this stage. The new rulers of “The Republic of India” proclaimed also programmatically that all foreign bondages were to be dismantled. The educational system installed by Thomas Babington Macaulay included. Did it happen? It did not happen. Do we still remember

those hailing celebrations that took place after the Second World War on “decolonisation”, on “independence” of occupied foreign lands? What did actually happen? How did it happen? What exactly was the process? Who took over the ruling power in those occupied lands after the occupants quitted? Were they “of the people, by the people, for the people”? How did the new rulers of now “independent” foreign lands acquire their ability to rule? Did they get training? Where and how did they get their training? In which training institutions? We could go on raising a lot of similarly relevant questions. We rather cut a long story short and prefer to talk in clear,

clean and straight terms. Most of the new rulers got their training in educational institutions established by the foreign occupants. The Goal of these Institutions was to train collaborators, mercenaries to serve the foreign occupants. In British India the British educational institutions produced that mentality: “English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” Most of the new rulers of the so-called “decolonised”, “independent” lands that were occupied by foreign robbers for a long period were collaborators, mercenaries as servants of the foreign occupants. Very few of them possessed an independent mind. Therefore, the

same educational institutions, the same educational philosophies, the same educational syllabuses are prevailing today worldwide. What did these institutions produce, what do they produce? Therefore, we maintain that “The Era of Vasco da Gama” never ceased to exist and has gained new momentum. Today it is stronger than ever. We get back to Bharatavarsa. As indicated in our earlier chapters, there had been upheavals against foreign occupation. These were labelled as “mutinies”. During the Second World War the movement “Quit India” emerged. The Indian National Congress

under the leadership of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru agitated half-heartedly avoiding a mass upheaval. We are not naughty enough to ask questions like, when was the Indian National Congress founded, by whom, and so on. As simple minded and straight forward searchers we present our findings in this chapter in a very quick motion. The Indian National Congress has just been ousted as a ruling power of the “Republic of India”. It has reigned over the Republic with one break in 1977. It was founded in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume (1829 - 1912), a Briton. Those “Indian” founding members were

"children” of Thomas Babington Macaulay. Collaborators like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Dawarkanath Thakur. Do we remember today that Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 – 1964), the first Prime Minister of Republic of India, was educated at home by a series of English governesses and tutors until the age of 16? Then in 1905 he was sent to Harrow like William Jones. His academic career was in no way outstanding. From Harrow he went to Trinity College, Cambridge, like Thomas Babington Macaulay, where he spent three years earning an honours degree in natural science. On leaving Cambridge he

qualified as a barrister after two years at the Inner Temple, London, where in his own words he passed his examinations ‘with neither glory nor ignominy’. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869 – 1948), son of a “Dewan” in a princely state in British India, studied in England, also a barrister from Inner Temple like William Jones. The British Parliament passed “The Indian Independence Act 1947” that divided British India into two new independent dominions, India and Pakistan, and many “Princely Indian States”. The ruling power was handed over to products of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s 30-year plan: “We must at

present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.” The Britons quitted from British India to remain as intermediate rulers. The same process was repeated in other areas occupied by European Christians. This is the story of “decolonization”, of “independence” of occupied foreign lands in a nutshell. “The Era of Vasco da Gama” is still going strong under many camouflaged terms created by “modern scholars”.

***** We get back to Thomas Babington Macaulay and to our question: “Why did he not cut all those expenditures on Asiatick Society, Asiatick Researches, Sanskrit literature, Sanskrit “Pandits”, translations of Sanskrit literature and on the likes?” He was not a fool and he knew that he had all powers to cut those expenditures. As an outstanding policy maker of the British Kingdom, in spite of his British and Evangelical blinkers, he might have understood that Bharatavarsa was unique in comparison to other occupied areas. This land had preserved knowledge and wisdom since time immemorial at the

authentic primary level establishing oral tradition besides creating many media of secondary storage facilities. Secondary storages can be destroyed, scripts included. We refer exemplarily to the library in Alexandria, also to a few Caliphs, if the much information that has been handed-down corresponds to facts. We can well imagine that any secondary storage can get lost or can be destroyed. But never the primary storage in human memory when a general social practice is based on oral tradition of handingdown knowledge and wisdom as it was and it is in Bharatavarsa. To destroy this oral tradition of handing-down knowledge and wisdom the foreign

occupants were to execute complete genocide which had not been possible yet, nowhere. We think that the knowledge and wisdom accumulated and systematically handeddown in oral tradition could not and cannot be suppressed forever. We have discussed face-to-face-mode of human communication and human communication based on media supports in our Chapters Seven and Eleven. We do not know enough of the mind of Thomas Babington Macaulay. And we are reluctant to speculate. We have to wait and find out what he actually did and then draw our conclusions. We must also review and study the factual

background in Kolkata in 1834. Thomas Babington Macaulay came to Kolkata in 1834 when he was 34 years old. He came with distinct plans. He was not eager to make some extra money like the many “William Jones”. As indicated earlier, in the British House of Commons he tinkered successfully at his “missionary” career in British India being a “Placeman” of the East India Company there. In July 1833 he got through the “India Bill” in which it was stipulated “that one of the members of the Supreme Council which is to govern our Eastern Empire is to be selected chosen from among persons who are not servants of the Company.” In

December, 1833 the Directors of the East India Company selected him as a Member of the Supreme Council of India. His salary was the highest so far. He was not sent, so to say. He came with his missionary vision to set up a policy of sustained exploitation in British India. He was one of the very few in the “colonial” establishment at Kolkata who was well educated, trained and possessed policy implementing experience. We assume that he was well in a position to judge over the quality of the so-called British “orientalists”. He could rather easily see through that those “orientalists” were operating in absolutely shallow and muddy water.

We know by now that all of those “orientalists”, not only the Britons, were dazzlers and swindlers. They were, at best, operating on the wave of orient raptures brought to primitive Europe by the Arabs via Iberian Peninsula. Being a Christian missionary and being a policymaker Thomas Babington Macaulay easily found out that the British “orientalists” were adorning themselves with borrowed plumes only. He probably did not know about the intellectual depth of the other “orientalists” in the rest of Europe yet. As a power conscious policy maker Thomas Babington Macaulay could not ignore obvious facts that in 1834 “a

Sanskrit language” was established in Kolkata. He possibly knew also all about Warren Hasting, Charles Wilkins, William Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, and Horace Hayman Wilson. They were celebrated personalities of the East India Company who, as a matter of fact, paved the ground for him also. Therefore he was not out to turn back the clock. He personally did not like this development of history. As a pragmatic policy-maker he looked forward. He took this development into account and started working on his missionary plan even in collaboration with the “Bengal-Mafia”. How Thomas Babington Macaulay

esteemed the “Bengal-Mafia” is revealed in that incident when on June 7, 1831 he also was invited to meet the celebrated Raja Ram Mohan Roy in London. He deliberately “missed” Ram Mohan Roy. He preferred to attend a “Party” where he met Sydney Smith (1771-1845), the Canon of St. Paul. The appointment of the “Bishop of Calcutta” was on the agenda. It is not relevant to know whether Thomas Babington Macaulay knew all about Joseph Boden and his will, he possibly knew about the first holder of the Boden-Chair for Sanskrit at Oxford University and Horace Hayman Wilson’s achievements there. There was

nothing. He calmly got through his educational system based on English medium in 1835 without being compelled to fight against the “Sanskritists”. Let others be at a harmless level and get through your own objectives. His assessments were realistic. We recall, in 1836 Horace Hayman Wilson took that appointment of the librarian to the East India Company in London. He shifted from Oxford to London, keeping his Bodenchair at Oxford University. Thomas Babington Macaulay might have known this also. There was nothing to be worried about in England. His “30-year’s plan” was moving in the right

direction. Yet he was in search of a policy to prevent that his new “class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, ever finds back to its roots. Thereby he noticed the vigorous activities of the Sanskritactivists in Germany. What he did not know, but we know, that the German “Franz Bopps” were no better than the British “Charles Wilkins”. The diligent Germans were happy with the Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary presented by Horace Hayman Wilson and started operating within the limits of this dictionary. There were very few exceptions like that of

Hans Heinrich Eduard Roeer who were in Bharatavarsa having that additional opportunity to look beyond that dictionary published by Horace Hayman Wilson. We have, at any case, taken a note that Thomas Babington Macaulay had decided to learn German before he left British India in 1838. This we know from his letter to his friend Thomas Flower Ellis of December 18, 1837: “...My passage is taken in the Lord Hungerford which ... is a highly celebrated vessel, celebrated for comfort and luxury of her internal arrangements rather than for her speed. ...I have made ample

intellectual provision for the voyage. I intend to make myself a good German scholar by the time of my arrival in England. I have already, at leisure moments, broken the ice. I have read about half of the New Testament in Luther’s translation; and am now getting rapidly, for a beginner, through Schiller’s History of the Thirty Year’s War. At present I can only afford an hour or two in the day for this study. At sea I intend to read German regularly ten hours a day. And I am quite certain that in four months, reading at the rate of ten hours a day, I shall make a complete conquest of the language. My German library consists of all Goethe’s works,

all Schiller's works, Muller’s History of Switzerland, some of Tieck, some of Lessing, and some other works of less fame. I hope to dispatch them all on my way home.” This method of learning German by a Briton we can re-enact. The methods of learning the Sanskrit language by all other European scholars we could not. Thomas Babington Macaulay became a member of the House of Commons again, remained a “Placeman” of the East India Company and continued to serve the British Crown as a policy maker. He began a search for “scholars” who were ready to translate the ancient Sanskrit literature in such a way as to convince

“his new class” in “India” that the New Testament was superior to the Vedas. In the execution of his mission he did not show more scruples than Roberto de Nobili, William Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson, Franz Bopp, etc. and etc.. We take liberty to look a little ahead, i.e. beyond 1847, when we took a break dealing with Friedrich Maximilian Müller and report: The bachelor Thomas Babington Macaulay was made a nobleman in 1857. The First Baron Macaulay of Rothley died in 1859. Immediately after his death the late Lord Rothley was

accused by several English authors, on satisfactory evidence, of having frequently twisted and invented facts in his books to make others believe his obsessive ideas. Well! Didn’t he have brilliantly shining examples? In Chambers’s Biographical Dictionary it is stated: “Macaulay’s reputation is not what once it was – he has been convicted of historical inaccuracy, of sacrificing truth for the sake of Epigram, of allowing personal dislike and Whig bias to distort his views of men and incidents. But as a picturesque narrator he has no rival.” And in the Encyclopaedia Britannica we read:

“Macaulay's reputation, immense during the last decade of his life, fell steadily in the 50 years that followed. His undisguised political partisanship, his arrogant assumption that English bourgeois standards of culture and progress were to be forever the norm for less favoured nations, and the materialism of his judgements of value and taste all came under heavy fire from such near-contemporary critics as Thomas Carlyle, Matthew Arnold, and John Ruskin.” Almost all avenues have been closed for “The European Sanskrit scholars and their Sanskrit” to look beyond the boundaries imposed by “A DICTIONARY,

SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH: TRANSLATED, AMENDED AND ENLARGED, FROM AN ORIGINAL COMPILATION PREPARED BY LEARNED NATIVES FOR THE COLLEGE OF FORT WILLIAM” presented by Horace

Hayman Wilson. We remember, he was called at Oxford University as the first Boden-Professorship for Sanskrit. His only mission was to translate the Bible into Sanskrit. He died in 1860 as the Boden-Professor. He was unable to deliver the goods. We are also reminded of the public statement of his German rival for the professorship, August Wilhelm von Schlegel, the then Professor for Literature at Bonn University. He stated that Horace Hayman Wilson had

decorated himself with the feathers of Indian “Pandits” and wouldn’t be able to perform his duties in Oxford without those “Pandits”. We know August Wilhelm von Schlegel also.

CHAPTER 15

DOES MAX MÜLLER FLEE ALSO FROM LONDON? OR DOES HE SEEK A REFUGE AT OXFORD? “The year 1848 began gaily for the young stranger. He had moved to King William Street, Strand, to be a little nearer to the Prussian Legation, though he already began to recognize the disadvantage of being so far from his printers, now that the first

volume of the Rig-veda was passing through the Press. No London firm could have undertaken the work, from want of the proper types, whilst the Oxford University Press, with the help of Professor Wilson, had secured the finest Devanagari types then known.” No. These lines are highlighted by us. We do not read these lines in “My Autobiography” by Max Müller. He has not yet disclosed his motives why he left London and how his life began at Oxford. Georgina Max Müller did it. These lines are the beginning of her Chapter V, page 70, with the headings: Visit to Paris. Revolution. Settles at

Oxford. Friends there. Letters to Burnouf and Bunsen. She has written 17 pages. In terms of hard facts, she does not give us any genuine information on the life of Dr. Max Müller at Oxford. When Friedrich Maximilian Müller arrives at Oxford in May 1848 he has started the life of a mercenary of the East India Company. When he sold himself, he had no other alternative to it. We remember his honest confession exclusively to his mother (highlighted by us): “The long battle is finally decided and I am, so to say, thoroughly through. I cannot believe yet that I have really achieved at last, for

which I aspired so long, autonomy and independency, and I realise very well that I have obtained much more than I deserved. ... What do you say now my dear Mother – is it not more than I ever could have expected! Was I also not right holding on up to the last moment, to put all my time, strength and money on one point and follow it up to the extreme! And think also that lately I did not have any pence left and that I was not able to earn myself in spite all efforts, and would have been compelled to return to Germany if Bunsen would not have supported and helped me with words and deeds. It was indeed a bad time, and after it is over, I may express

also. I saw, the decisive turning-point of my life arriving in spite of all uncertainties and was only a few steps away from my goal, yet I would not have been in a position to await, but be compelled to get back to Germany, to give up my favourite studies, if not entirely, but at least partly, earning my miserable living at a school or by giving private language-lessons.” We know that Oxford is not far away from London. It is so little far away that, as we know by now, Horace Hayman Wilson can afford to live in London and fulfil his primary duty, teaching Sanskrit at Oxford University. Yet, we find it

striking that Friedrich Maximilian Müller with much less material resources voluntarily leaves behind his “social sponsor” Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and London, that “Mecca” as he himself has referred to, the Library in Leadenhall Street and the sole “Sanskrit scholar” Horace Hayman Wilson. We know also that Friedrich Maximilian Müller had no acquaintances and friends at Oxford. We have also taken a significant note that he did not even envisaged yet to learn the Sanskrit language or any other academic subject neither in London nor in Oxford. He depended on “his pushing out in the world” as a Sanskrit scholar from Germany, as Dr. Max Müller. He did it

so far successfully. Well, we must not repeat here that saying about the “blinds”, in the lands of blinds. These are few of the reasons that we presently feel compelled to depend solely on the source: Letters of Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother in handwritten German and not on those printed letters “translated” by Georgina Max Müller. We keep our senses alert. He writes his first letter to his mother after he has moved from London to Oxford on May 21, 1848. We reproduce those parts only that carry facts of his real life and sentiments. “Oxford, 17. Walton Place, 21. May, (it must be 1948. It is not mentioned.)

My dear Mother, So, at last, I have reached Oxford where I found your last letter also. …And I feel, thank God, so well as I never felt in hot, dirty and loud London.“ He is thoroughly enthusiastic, in all respects, he writes. His work moves also smartly. He would like to settle down at Oxford, though “... certainly I miss Bunsen much, yet who knows for how long he will stay in London, and during the season of social events I don’t see him much. ... Recently I received a letter from Frh. von Rath recommending a governess, Frh. Schlieder, whom I have recommended to Mad. Bunsen. I shall open an employment exchange for

women from Dessau. ... Look forward to getting good news, wholeheartedly your Max” In a way Friedrich Maximilian Müller flees also from London, the metropolis he had characterised on September 1, 1847: “London is said to be plastered with gold and with cadaver, but I believe, there is no place in the world that is more grandiose as this metropolis.” Well, his memory was rather short. His next letter is dated June 28, 1848. He enjoys Oxford and is enthusiastically happy to be there. He has completed 50 Sheets, but everything depends on the disposition of the “Directors” and he

would not like to displease them, so he writes. Between the lines one can read that he could have worked faster and has enough free time. He has visited the “Bunsens” in their land-domicile which is a hunting palace owned by Duke Marlborough. For the first time he writes about Bunsen’s 10 children, five sons and five daughters and about their many grandchildren. All are living in England excepting one son. We apologise taking liberty to point out two aspects, which are not explicitly dealt with in his letter to the mother. Friedrich Maximilian Müller wants his mother to believe that being recruited at the lowest level, i.e. at the level of a

ruffian or of a writer, in the establishment of East India Company, is a big thing. He has already become so big that he negotiates in all matters with the “Directors of the Board” only. This is one aspect. In none of the documents is it indicated, not even indirectly, who was his immediate boss, who was his watchdog, responsible to check and control that he delivers the goods before even a pence is paid. He might have believed in those big ideas of autonomy and independency. If he believed it was so, it shows only his limitless naivety. At least he knew by experiencing the daily practice that autonomy and

independency were only his dreams. But swindling had apparently become his second nature. Otherwise he would not have written to his mother: “My book is growing as expected, I am going to complete 50 sheets soon, but it does not depend on me, but on the Directors, when the first volume should be published, and I cannot fall out with the gentlemen.” This is the second aspect. According to the pecking order of the establishment at London his watch-dog was keeping vigilance. We shall look out for indications to identify his watch-dog. On July 11, 1848 he expresses his longings to spend a few days in Dresden

together with his mother and others. But he is “indebted to the East India Company which is spending so much on him” that he hesitates asking for a leave, also because the “gentlemen” are on such issues “very touchy (he writes “eckelich” in German). … Oxford is now lonely as all and everyone are on vacation, students and professors, and thus I can work more and undisturbed. I may visit the ”Bunsens” for a day or two at London or out in rural, more holidays are out of question as my first bulky book awaits its release some time later this year, and then I can close my books relieved and come to Germany. … Here in Oxford, there

were great festivities at the end of the semester”. He does not disclose who those “touchy Gentlemen” were and on which occasions did he feel and/or encounter their touchiness. He writes again in August (no date) to his mother. He feels genuinely bad. He can work so peacefully at Oxford whereas others in Germany are confronted with so much of social unrest. Oxford is still on vacation. German speaking Friends from London have visited him. When they leave in a few weeks he will start again his work to complete his first volume before Easter, which will consist of more than 1000 pages. There

must have been controversies too. He writes: “I believed that I could publish the half of the first volume and was very upset in the beginning. But now nothing can be changed, when one takes an assignment, one has to obey. So I can come home only during easter on a longer leave.” We are reminded of his big ideas of autonomy and independency being on the bottom of the payroll of the East India Company. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen is back from Germany and he (Bunsen) will continue to stay on in London. Friedrich Maximilian Müller is relieved. He has not indicated yet who stopped the publication of “the half of

the first volume” and how and why it was stopped. On October 3, 1848 he writes (highlighted by us): “My dear Mother, Instead congratulating you in advance in writing to your birthday, I hoped to be there with you. Now, I don’t want to complain, one has to take life as good as one can, and thank God that it is not worse. I was so much in worries when I read in newspapers about the labour-revolts, barricades and street fights in Chemnitz.” So, he is not eager to come to Germany now though he misses the “life in Germany”. However, he continues: “I sometimes think whether it is

preferable for me to settle down in England, and yet I am apprehensive whether I shall ever feel at home here. When I come to Germany next year, I must look around whether there are perspectives for me, if not, I must see to find a new way to settle down here. Now, time will tell, and we continue with our works, and God will help us. ... I feel here so much better than in London that I think I will settle down here only. Life is cheaper here and I already had saved £ 20, but I had to spend the amount to buy Handwrittens and letters from India that I need for my work. The money is well invested as I can sell those materials to public libraries

afterwards, these are very rare and valuable. ... I have not heard from Bunsen for long, I think I should call on him as soon as he finds time. It is always a true pleasure and it is so calming to meet and speak to him, he is always so optimistic. ... And now, many, many wishes and greetings and kisses for you on 12. October, and happiness to your next year from your old boy” Here we take liberty of a break to add one letter of Max Müller written to his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. So far we did not find a single indication that he ever tried to add any formal educational qualification or to

earn an academic degree after leaving the Leipzig University in 1843; nowhere. Then we find this letter published by Georgina Max Müller on pages 82/83. She translated this letter from German into English, as usual in a style and diction which was definitely not Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s. It is none-the-less a remarkable pointer as well. We reproduce the presentation by Georgina Max Müller refraining ourselves from making any other comments than for a few highlights. “The following letter to Bunsen is the only allusion to a scheme which Max Müller can hardly have contemplated seriously, though a

Pass Degree would have been child's play to him, and no doubt a life in College such as that led by many of his friends must have appeared more attractive than his solitary lodgings : — Translation. 17, Walton Place, October 8, 1848 : ‘I think of going to London for a few days early next week to do some work at the East India House. It would be a great delight to me if I could see you for a few minutes, to ask your advice in a matter which occupies me a good deal. The revolutions in Germany have laid such hold on all the

circumstances of life, and have so undermined the foundations of society, that one loses all courage to build one's future on such a soil. Unless one feels the strength and power to take an active part in initiating and settling matters, but wishes to find one's ideal of life in the narrow quiet circle of science, one has the right, I think, to seek shelter there, where science, if not patronized and aided, is at least tolerated and let alone. With all my love of the past, and with a full belief in the future of Germany, I feel more drawn at present to English than to German soil. My work will keep me in England for the next few years;

and as Oxford is a very pleasant place of residence, I have an idea of entering one of the Colleges as an undergraduate, keeping my twelve terms, and then taking my degree. I should hope to defray the expense by my own work, and the competition in the Oriental market is so small, that my prospects later on would probably not be bad. It is, of course, difficult to resolve to take such a backward step, and begin again from the beginning, when my friends and contemporaries have already found their spheres of activity as teachers and Professors. My own studies would meet with many interruptions, but when one sees that the path one has hewn for

oneself does not lead to the goal, it is better to turn round than to pursue the wrong road till no return is possible. My work goes on merrily; seventy-two sheets are printed, and I am writing the preface, which often overwhelms me; but I have time till Easter, when the first two volumes and the preface will appear. Dr. Pauli is still living with me, but he has a good chance of being appointed to the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh. In the hope of soon having the happiness of seeing you, I am, with my whole heart, yours obediently.’” ***** It is a pointer. A reply of Christian

Charles Josias Bunsen to this letter is not on record. We shall continue to look out. Friedrich Max Müller is lonely in Oxford or as Georgina Max Müller had put it, lives in “his solitary lodgings”. At Oxford he has time for reflections about his future. When he was hired by the East India Company in April, 1847, practically for eight years, he expressed his euphoric feelings to his mother on April 15, 1847 we recall: “The long battle is finally decided and I am, so to say, thoroughly through. I cannot believe yet that I have really achieved at last, for which I aspired so long, autonomy and independency, and I realise very well that I have obtained much more than I deserved.”

His euphoria has evaporated totally in one and half years, in October 1848. The reality of his life might have taught him that his assignment had little to do with “autonomy and independency”. Gradually he seems to comprehend what it means to be on the pay-list of the East India Company. Probably he realises that he could be fired any time, if he fails to deliver the goods. He has to accept all and everything. His dream of “autonomy and independency” has vanished. He apprehends that the protective hand of his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen will disappear at the moment whenever his patron will be called back to Germany. If he is finally compelled to settle down in

England, it will be good for him not to depend exclusively on the East India Company. He thinks, Oxford could offer an option “to find a new way to settle down”. Oxford is then rather a small town being an “academic” market place. A few hours journey to London, a distance of about 100 km. In Oxford there are always gossips on the University, on Colleges, on teachers, on students and what not. Though Friedrich Maximilian Müller has presently to accomplish a more clerical job he lives there also. And the Oxford University Press is just not an ordinary press. He gets contacts and can make acquaintances. And talking

he has learnt. Friendship for a foreigner, who is still learning English, is far too large a term. We have taken note of “Dr. Pauli is still living with me, but he has a good chance of being appointed to the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh.” Most probably this Dr. Pauli was Dr. phil. Georg Reinhold Pauli (1823 1882), looking out for a job in “prospering” England like many other non-British young academicians. We remember Friedrich Rosen and Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer. Max Müller can imagine that there could be an opportunity for him also for some kind of academic assignment. In

Oxford too he goes as Dr. Max Müller, a German Sanskrit scholar, like Dr. phil. Georg Reinhold Pauli. Listening to and seeing at things happening in Oxford he finds out, in whatever academic field, for whatever position of a job, he will have to apply in writing for the post. For that he will need academic certificates too. He has none. So he probably contemplates to make use of the period of his service as a mercenary to acquire academic certificates at Oxford. Reaching this point we are remembered of a line in the letter to his mother dated October 3, 1848: “When I come to Germany next year, I must look around whether there are perspectives for me, if not, I must see to find a new way to

settle down here.” ***** Oxford is a clerical conservative town mainly housing colleges, libraries and the University. The University was founded in the 13th Century. Much later than the Arabs brought Greek and Arab civilisation to the Iberian Peninsula. The main subjects of the University were “Theology”, Greek and Latin. “Modern” languages were not taught at Oxford. In 1724, so it is said, King Georg I failed to introduce French and German for diplomatic needs. In 1835 a donation came from a celebrated architect, Robert Taylor, to

make sure that French and German were taught within the university. The University took the money all right. Money does not smell, isn’t it? The amount was invested in two buildings adjacent to the university in a distinctive different style of architecture, to assert that these two buildings were not a part of the University. Then in 1844 the “Taylor Institution” was founded with its own statutes, a library was set up and took up courses teaching French and German in 1847. First with two language teachers, then in 1848 with a “professorship” for Modern Languages was founded. Though there were no British competitors, there had

been a lot of bureaucratic hick-hacks whilst appointing a professor. Ultimately in December 1848 one Dr. phil. Francis (or Frederick) Henry Trithen became the first Professor of Modern European Languages in the Taylorian Institution at Oxford. F. H. Trithen was the “German Son of Francis Emmanuel of Brugg, Switzerland”, born in 1820. We do not know why he was brought up in Odessa, Russia. From Russia he came to Berlin and got his Dr. phil. there. It is said that he learnt Sanskrit too from Franz Bopp, whom we know. Apparently he visited England in 1841, when he was 21 in age. It is not on record when he got a job in

the British Museum. Thereafter he became secretary to the Geographical Society. As the first Taylorian professor of modern languages he started teaching German. He was then 28 years old. Indeed a remarkable career. We get back to Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s letters to his mother. The next to his October-letter, when we took a break, is that of November 5, 1848 from a new address, Oxford, 9. Park Place. He congratulates his mother. She has her second grandchild. Then, from the blue, he writes to his mother that his brother-in-law should not make any payment on his behalf or send him money. He forbids her too to save money

for him. He does not possess money, he writes, but he can maintain himself. For 8 days, he reports, he was with the Bunsens. Laudation on Christian Charles Josias Bunsen follows, almost in the same diction and style as usual. Then he writes (highlighted by us): “After my return to Oxford I have changed my lodging, getting nearer to the city. The students and the professors are also returning, full of life here. One does not talk of cholera here, it has not reached Oxford. So, you need not worry, the climate is so much healthier here than in London, and if I would have enough money, I would learn riding, go for fox-

hunting, every morning I observe, a mass of students in their red hacking jacket and deerstalker, but it is very expensive, so I leave it and get back diligently to Vedas and as soon as the first volume is ready, I will pack and be away to Chemnitz. 620 pages are already printed, yet lots of work has to be done. ... No news from Hagedorn or anybody else, wishes for all, don’t forget the young Max” Obviously there was something in the bush. We do not know. On December 6, 1849 he writes again, in the same style and diction. He has become twenty five in age. He does not know whether he should become melancholic or happy.

He would like to be at home. Well, we skip the trivialities and look out for bits of information that would enable us to judge the quality of his doings. “If only the Veda was not so lengthy, the old Indians before 3000 years could have made it in a shorter version. Now I have reached 664 in pages, so you can imagine that this is going to be a vigorous book, about 1000 pages, and a long English preface, on which I am already working strenuously.” After quite a lot of lamentations and dreams we are suddenly informed (highlighted by us):

“You know, to be honest, I would like to live as librarian at Dessau, whenever the post becomes vacant. I could continue my works there also, and the more secluded you live, the happier you are now-a-days. Naturally these are mere plans and you must be satisfied with whatever comes, if you can maintain your independency and thereby can earn your bread and butter, and better remain single in spite of your advisees, because the rich matches here in England are not so thickly seeded. Just imagine, last week Jenny Lind gave a concert here in the auditorium. I never had heard her, and I spent 20 Shilling, and I do not

repent. ... Please take care of your eyes and shun strenuous readings, you have to use them later, especially when you read my Veda. Yes, what would have happened to my poor Veda in Germany or elsewhere? ... Happy new year for you all, your Max” Remarkable bits of information in between. In his next letter dated January 12, 1849 he narrates that the Bunsens have shifted to Totterridge and he was the only person invited during the Christmas there. Then: he is fed up with England, but for him there is no way out. His work has slowed down and he might be able to come to Germany in summer

only. He advises his mother to save postal charges by sending her in care of “Chevalier Bunsen”. The address we know already. His next letter is again without a date. Beside usual formalities more detailed advises how his mother could save postal charges. ”You must take a separate envelope of good paper and well written address. Chevalier Bunsen, Envoye extraordinaire et ministre pleripotentiaire de Le Majeste le Roi de Pruße aupres de la Cour de Londre. I can receive in this way all letters and everywhere, the address has to be written well and correctly.

This is all I can write today, it is already too late and the letters start today, then in five days in Berlin, on the sixth day reaching Chemnitz, the same way also from Chemnitz. B. is all smiles and graces and does everything to get me a post and I think, he will succeed. … Your Max“ Next he writes on February 19, 1849 from Oxford, 9. Park Place (highlighted by us): “My dear mother, Why are you so indignant with poor Chemnitz as if there would be any place in the world which is better, and as if there would be anywhere in the world a place where one is not bored, one must sit

and write year after year. What would you do at Oxford which is such a personalized boredom, which prevails in England in general? One must make the best of this world, and you are absolutely right that you start again your life like migratory birds, I would also do the same if could. How would you like to read proofs every whole day, which is worse than knitting stockings, if you can’t have your thoughts while you do the boring knitting? There is very little manners in practice here and when there are social events, you do nothing than entertain the ladies and gentlemen with smacks or play something, if you don’t do it, you can quietly sit in a

corner, on a ladies’ sofa, in half sleep with a cup of tea. If I should start complaining about these sides of life, then it would be an extreme long topic, it is rather better to look at the good sides and make the best of it. I believe, should I get back to Germany, there would often be longings for old good England, but I think, anyway, that I would enjoy life in Chemnitz either. I am presently planning, as long as the scandals continue in Germany, I shall remain in quiet England; however, if I get a professorship at Bonn or elsewhere later, I shall prefer that to any post in England. My Vedas will keep me in England as long as I want, 5 or 10

years, but I am not bound, and whenever I find something better in Germany, I can interrupt my work in Germany and try to continue later. The situation has to become normal again, and one just does not give up a steady job of 1000 Thl. just like that. I think, Victor Carus will come to Oxford soon, he has accepted the job that will bring 100 per annum – it is of course very meagre for Oxford, but if we live together, it is manageable for him. He wrote quite enthusiastically that he got a stipend for a travel to South America for doing natural science. On that his father had written a terrible letter, very nasty, in his way, that he will

repudiate him, won’t like to know anything about him and strike his name from the holy list of the family etc., half mad. Now that he gets a steady job in England, he believes, he could reconcile with his father and I believe that he would find some other better job. I am very happy about it, and it will do him good to have lived sometime amongst English people. But the incident with his old man is very disgusting, and all this because he wanted him to work as a physician in Russia. ... So one can always help someone in life – only courage, everything will turn to good, and we shall drink a glass of wine together. ... I have read often the name of

Goldstücker in the news paper and his Sanskrit must have thus suffered. The Sanskrit book, the title you have copied, I have already received, and if you look into it, you will find my name often referred there also. I get such books already as presents – naturally, a sprat is thrown to catch a mackerel. – Recently I was at a fox hunting here nearby – it was very nice. Around fifty people on horse, in large gallops over fences and ditches, fractures of arm, legs and so on, is nice to look at, but not to participate. It costs a lot of money that I possess affluently – Many wishes to the Augustes ... Thine for ever MM.”

Obviously Friedrich Maximilian Müller is not satisfied with his predicament in England. As long a Christian Charles Josias Bunsen remains in England, he probably feels, the East India Company will not fire him. He probably knows by now that none of the celebrated Sanskrit scholars knew or know the Sanskrit language really. Even the paladins like Franz Bopp or Horace Hayman Wilson were Sanskrit-ignorant like him. Both of them did not have academic degrees which were stipulated for university professorship. Both of them could get professorship at celebrated universities like Berlin and Oxford. Why not he? *****

We recall: The paladin of Sanskrit Franz Bopp studied philology in Aschaffenburg for two years, tried twice to get his doctorate there unsuccessfully and then went to Paris to learn Sanskrit from Antoine Léonard de Chézy. But he also did not know the Sanskrit language. Yet he became the first Sanskrit professor at Collège de France at the age of thirty-three, the very first Sanskrit professorship in Europe. Franz Bopp claimed to have invented “his Sanskrit” all by himself. We recall, on July 27, 1814 he explained it to his academic mentor Karl Joseph Hieronymus Windischmann: “...I have worked out an alphabet by

which one can reproduce the system of Sanskrit alphabetic characters in a pure form, ... Before I write the grammar, I presumably should make my system of characters known and for this purpose I want to take the Bhagawatgita, the most beautiful parts of which you already know from Schlegel’s (Friedrich von) translation, and publish the (original) text with a very literal translation in Latin, and my brother will probably make the Dewanagari alphabetic characters for a few pages.” And we read in the same letter how he took “possession” of Sanskrit, in his own way:

“One writes the Sanskrit in more than 10 different ways. Every different nation in India has adapted its system of alphabetic characters to the Dewanagari or to the actual Sanskrit system of alphabetic characters, and writes its Sanskrit accordingly. Why shouldn’t we Europeans, whose languages do actually originate from Sanskrit, also adapt our alphabet to that, in order to spread the precious writings of the “Indier” all the more?” We remember as well, in 1816 in Frankfurt Franz Bopp published his book: On the conjugation system of the Sanskrit language in comparison with

that the Greek, Latin, Persian and Germanic language. With episodes of Ramayan and Mahabharat in precise metric translations from the original text and with some sections from the Vedas. He was then 24 years old. Later he founded the “Comparative Science of Languages”. The other paladin, Horace Hayman Wilson (1786-1860), began his studies in medicine at St. Thomas's Hospital when he was 18 years old, in 1804, and was recruited by the East India Company as an “assistant surgeon” for Kolkata in 1808. He did not serve as an “assistant surgeon” in Kolkata. He served under a Doctor of Medicine as an assistant. Not

in a hospital, but in the Calcutta Mint minting coinages. There is nothing on record when, from whom and for how long he learnt Sanskrit. Yet he published the first “A DICTIONARY, SANSKRIT AND ENGLISH: TRANSLATED, AMENDED AND ENLARGED, FROM AN ORIGINAL COMPILATION PREPARED BY LEARNED NATIVES FOR THE COLLEGE OF FORT WILLIAM” in 1819.

In 1832 he was called at Oxford University as the first Professorship for Sanskrit. We remember also the comment of August Wilhelm von Schlegel, the then Professor for Literature at the Bonn University. He stated that Horace Hayman Wilson had decorated himself with the feathers of

Indian “Pandits” and wouldn’t be able to perform his duties in Oxford without those “Pandits”. Friedrich Maximilian Müller was blustering around in England as Dr. Max Müller, a Sanskrit scholar from Germany. He has been hired by the East India Company to copy Sanskrit handwritten manuscripts of the Rig-Veda available in Europe and compile them into the original text of the Rig-Veda. There was none around to question the feasibility of this proposition or check his claim that he was qualified to undertake such an adventure. So, why should he not at least hope, even to get a professorship for Sanskrit? Who will

know about those honest lines written to his mother on April 15, 1847? We remember (highlighted by us): “What do you say now my dear Mother – is it not more than I ever could have expected! Was I also not right holding on up to the last moment, to put all my time, strength and money on one point and follow it up to the extreme! And think also that lately I did not have any pence left and that I was not able to earn myself in spite all efforts, and would have been compelled to return to Germany if Bunsen would not have supported and helped me with words and deeds. It was indeed a bad time,

and after it is over, and now I may express it also. I saw, the decisive turning-point of my life arriving in spite of all uncertainties and was only a few steps away from my goal, yet I would not have been in a position to await, but be compelled to get back to Germany, to give up my favourite studies, if not entirely, but at least partly, earning my miserable living at a school or by giving private language-lessons.” ***** Getting back to his letter dated February 19, 1849 we have to add information on “Victor Carus” and on “Goldstücker”. When Friedrich Maximilian was 12

years old, we may recall, a friend of his father, late Wilhelm Müller, one Professor Carus at Leipzig, was ready to look after and take care of him. Victor, his son, was of the same age. Together they attend the best school at Leipzig the Nicolai-Schule. Victor did his Abiturienten-Examen in the Nicolai Schule and took up the study in Medicine at Leipzig University. Friedrich Maximilian Müller, we remember: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt.” He took up his studies in philology at the same University.

“Goldstücker” must have been Theodor Goldstücker (1821 – 1872) of Jewish origin. He studied at Bonn University from 1838 – 1840 philology and oriental languages. When he was 19 years old, he went to Paris to study the “handwrittens” in Sanskrit. In 1846 he came back to Berlin. In 1850 he was advised to leave Germany and he moved from Berlin to London. A year later he became Sanskrit-professor at University College at London on recommendation of Horace Hayman Wilson. On April 4, 1849 Friedrich Maximilian Müller reacts aggrieved on the news that Auguste’s little one has died. “If the poor little kid was so weak as

you write, then it was also a blessing of heaven that God has taken him back so soon relieving the kid and all others of sufferings in this world. I know well that such thoughts of consolation are in vain, also thus try to shorten the period of sorrow and distress. It is not meant so, as sorrow and distress do also something good and it is necessary in life, every joy and delight in this world has to be compensated by distress and sorrow, that every new relationship that we establish in this world come to an end and the closer the relationship, the greater the distress.” Pages he writes in a style and diction of a child on his feelings on life and death,

on world and on God. “All these are not written in the Bible, but it is worth to guide thinking Christians.” After his deliberations he writes: “It should be understood that you do not show my letters to others, yes the best thing would be that you burn them as I always do with your letters, thus we keep it in our memory.” In his letter to his mother dated May 22, 1848 he expresses his relief knowing after more than a month that she was keeping her health in spite of sorrow, and social upheavals and fights also in

Dresden. He does not know whether he could do anything for her welfare. “I have calculated, day and night, not only the costs, but also whether you could be able to live here, so alone all the time – I sit the whole day in the library or busy otherwise, no one is with you whom you could understand. I want to do everything that I am able to do, but this can only be possible if I work incessantly. ... ” After an elaboration of pros and contras he writes: “My work has piled up so much that even with my utmost effort I won’t be able to finish it before October. If you come to Oxford, I shall immediately begin

with my 2nd volume, otherwise I plan to stay in Germany during the winter.” Then many words of consolation follow. His letter dated June 15, 1849 is uninformative. No news on the progress of his “work”, or on academic learning. A lot on general affairs of the day instead and on social parties and events at “Bunsens” – like Corps Diplomatique, etc. He reports to his mother on July 28, 1849 that he had a severe attack of headaches. The doctor prescribed him a change at least for 14 days. He follows the doctor’s advice although he would

have liked to finish his work first, he writes. He takes it as the will of God and reflects over God and on his will quite elaborately. Then (highlighted by us): “My only wish is and I hope, God gives me strength to sustain my selfreliance and independence in my laborious work, so that I can find that very way in life which appears to me to be of my own conviction. Should he give me more, it would be a life together with you in peace and in satisfaction, it would then be more than I deserve. But have courage, nothing can happen in life, other than it is truly best for us. Now I would

like to inform you about my plans for the near future. I have to complete my first volume, now I am on p. 900 and have to make 100 pages, which could be done in six weeks. Then I have to await a reply from the directors whether they are willing to print my preface that is already ready for print. Should they sanction the money, I shall have to get it through the press, as Bunsen says, it would be much beneficial for me in England as well as in Germany when I get back. Then I shall come to Germany and stay during the winter with you wherever you would like to stay. At the same time I shall look around whether I can find a place at

a German university, preferably at Bonn. ... If this does not work out then I shall return to England and you will visit me. Then I shall change my plans for England till I find a post, where you could live comfortably with me and keep the house. For the forthcoming months there would be lots of work and hopefully my health will stand the strains. ... Victor wrote to me from Zurich that he will be arriving here in September and he is very happy. I am afraid that he will not find England as pleasant as he thinks and the longer one lives in England the more one longs for to return to Germany. Better a stormy than a dead sea. The

English people are becoming similar to the Chinese and the nature has built them a Chinese wall around their celestial empire. When one makes oneself a Chinese, one gets on well with them. Courage and confidence! With old love, your max” After his return to Oxford from his “change” he writes to his mother on September 2, 1849 informing her that his change was extended for two months. He has recovered well. He assures his mother that he would not have extended his stay, if his departure for Germany would have been delayed thereby. He could have completed his work two months before if the “Directors”

wouldn’t have created difficulties sanctioning the additional costs for printing the preface. The consequence of this delay is that he does not earn anymore before he can begin with the second volume. He is now living on his savings. He narrates in details of all those matters that have to done before he can leave Oxford. “Had I been able to avoid these three months, I would have arrived like a Nabob.” This letter would be the last but one, he writes. He can write on September 30, 1849 to his mother that he will unfortunately meet her a few days later than her birthday. And, he would not arrive at Dresden as poor as he believed. He will

get 1000 Fr. from Paris as a prize. “When I get my money from Paris, we can live quite comfortably. The prize is for a treatise on language-science (Sprachwissenschaft) – I wrote it when I was staying at the lakes of Westmoreland: On the relationship of language-science to the oldest history of mankind, if you would be interested to know. Please keep it for you now till it has become perfect.” He could not leave England before October 20, 1849. The exact date of his departure is not on record. It seems, he arrives at Berlin, and thereafter he spends a short time in Dresden and Leipzig, and then comes back to Berlin

together with his mother with the intention to stay there till Christmas. It is all private. Nothing is on record. We wonder only about his obsessive desire to stay in Berlin and not in Chemnitz or in Dresden. We shall look out. Obviously he gets back to Chemnitz with his mother after Christmas, and return to Berlin via Dresden. This information we get from his letter from Berlin to his mother dated January 30, 1850. And (highlighted by us), “Humboldt was extraordinarily friendly when I met him, had spoken to the King and told me that the King would like to meet me. Due to the recent political developments it is

difficult to determine, where to the King will summon me. H advised me to send a note referring to the need of my early departure, what I have done, and now I must wait. I am fine staying with Goldstücker, but the idleness I do not like anymore and my longing is to get back to Oxford.” Now we can understand why Max Müller had been so keen to stay in Berlin. We shall look out. On February 7, 1850 he writes to his mother again from Berlin. He begins: “Unfortunately I must write, my dear Mother, again from Berlin and that because of a sad reason, that Morier is sick since a week. He has caught

such a cold that the doctor was afraid of a sore throat, and the poor fellow had to stand through severe throatand headaches. So I seat in his room daily since for five days and feel relieved that today he is much better although the doctor has asked him not to leave his room. Naturally I cannot stay on here the whole period, as good care is taken for him. I shall remain here for a few days to be sure that there would not be a relapse.” He writes more than a page describing all that went with the sickness of his friend Morier. Thereafter (highlighted by us): “Now I will not continue my laments

any more, but now narrate my meeting the King. Friday morning the courier of the court brought me the news that I was called by the King to a dinner (zur Tafel) in Charlottenburg, and half past two Humboldt came with his carriage to pick me up. I must not describe my outfit to you, you know it well, and even in the suitcase it has kept its form. Humboldt told me, it would be a quite small circle. When we however reached, there were already some 30 persons and waiting upon the King to appear. H. introduced me to many chamberlains (Kammerherren) and the gentlemen and ladies at the court were

wondering about my presence, as I was the only one person without epaulets and a minimum of ten decorations. At last the King came and the Queen, and again I was the only one who was not yet introduced, so I was taken through Court-ladys and Generals to be presented to his Majesty who looked at me curiously. He then enquired where I was born and told me that he has met the librarian Müller the poet.” We have read this letter up to the end. For more than one reason we decline to reproduce the complete letter in a literal translation from its German original into English. We have just reproduced literal

translation of the beginning of this letter. In all probability this meeting the King “in Charlottenburg” is another “entertaining” cute story only. There are three different versions of this story. One the story told by Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother. Accordingly the meeting took place in Charlottenburg, i.e. in Charlottenburg Palace at Berlin. Second: Max Müller has presented a very slim version of this story only in his “Auld Lang Syne”, on page 217. According to this version, the meeting took place in Potsdam. Potsdam is also a residential city of the King, but about 40 km away from Berlin. And, there is no palace in

Potsdam called Charlottenburg. We reproduce, however, the complete third version of the story published by Georgina Max Müller in her Chapter VII, 1850 – 1851, under the heading “Dinner at Potsdam”, pages 106 / 107. Her version is lengthier than the original letter dated February 7, 1850 in German, which is also kept at Oxford University. She has reproduced a translation of a letter dated February 2, 1850. A letter carrying this date just does not exist in any archive. Yet, a comparison between our reproduction of the beginning of the letter dated February 7, 1850 and the “third” version is enlightening. We quote Georgina Max

Müller: “He had met Humboldt, who told him that the King had expressed a wish to see him before he returned to England, and soon after brought him a command to dine at Potsdam. He sends his mother a lively account of the dinner:— Translation. BERLIN, Feb. 2, 1850. 'Dearest Mother,—I must tell you all about my visit to the King. Early Friday came a messenger from the palace to invite me to dinner at Charlottenburg, and at 2.30 Humboldt came in his carriage to take me there. He told me it would be

quite a small party, but when we arrived we found about thirty people already assembled, and we all waited for the King. Humboldt introduced me to various people, and the ladies and gentlemen of the Court were evidently much surprised at my presence, as I was the only man without epaulets and about ten Orders. At last came the King and Queen. I was again the only person who had not yet been presented. So I was taken through all the ladies and gentlemen and presented to His Majesty. „Brahma is great, but fear not !" I thought, as I looked at the King, only separated from me by his mountainous embonpoint. He asked me where I was

born, and told me that in the Dessau library he had seen the poet Müller. Then he talked of the Duchess, and at last asked how I liked England, and then saying "Wünsche Ihnen guten Appetit" (I wish you a good appetite), bowed and dismissed me. Then the Queen came up to me, and was asking me about the Duchess, when the King hurried up to her, gave her his arm, saying as Berlin wit, "Monsieur, s'il vous plait, dinner is served." Then we went into the next room. I sat between two officers, and enjoyed my dinner, which was a very good one. I took the liberty of letting my knife and fork go with each course, till I remarked that the servants looked askance, and then

I saw to my great surprise that the ladies and gentlemen round me eat everything with the same knife and fork ! What to do ? to imitate them ? No, I went quietly on to the last dish, and let the footmen and my neighbours and vis-a-vis think of me what they pleased; but I was amused. After dinner we had coffee in quite a small room. The King came up to me again, and asked if I knew English, and other kindly questions, and then joined the Queen. I had some talk with some of the Gentlemen in Waiting, Count Puckler, &c.; then their Majesties went away, and I drove home with Humboldt. He was very sorry that the party had been so

large, but said the King was so much occupied it was difficult to see him alone. It amused me very much to have this peep into the royal circle, and it may be useful to me later on. Humboldt was delightful. I have been busy for him on the names of the Dogstar in Sanskrit, which he will mention in Cosmos. That is better than dining with the King, but I knew you would want me to describe it all, but you must not repeat it to everybody. I am often afraid on this account of telling you everything when I write. There was no talk of an Order, which would do me more harm than good.'

Max Müller had arranged to leave Berlin directly after the dinner at Potsdam, but his friend Morier was taken suddenly ill with quinsy, and he was obliged to stay on and nurse him through a most alarming attack, and it was not till quite the end of February that he was able to start for Paris, where he received his 1,200 frs. from the Prix Volney and saw Burnouf and many of his old French friends.” ***** Max Müller prolongs his stay in Berlin. He stays with Theodor Goldstücker in 38, Luisenstrasse. On February 19, 1850 he informs his mother that Morier had an

extremely serious relapse. He himself has also caught cold and cough. He intends to travel to Paris by the end of the month. No new information. On March 8, 1850 he writes from Paris that he is there since 8 days. He lives in a hotel. He left Berlin when Morier was better and did not need his help any more. He meets friends there and “Hagedorn” too. The weather is wonderfully pleasant. He is fine there. Some social news and gossips. Soon he intends to reach Oxford. No new information. On March 14, 1850 he leaves Paris. He enjoyed the beginning of spring there. In London he calls on “Bunsens” and some

other friends. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen is very happy to see him again. The house is full. His third daughter gets engaged to a very rich Englishman. Reaching Oxford he meets Victor, who is quite comfortable. Oxford is in vacation. He has received costly books from India. He does not know how to pay for the books. He is almost penny-less. He takes up his work again. All this we know from his letter to his mother written on the Good Friday from Oxford. We are surprised not have heard anything on the birth of his “first child”, bringing out “an Indian Nabub to the world”, his first volume, which he had completed before he got his three months

leave in mid October 1849. What happened with the sanction of additional funds for printing of his elaborate preface? We do not know anything yet, who had stopped the publication of that “half-volume”? Who was his watch dog on behalf of the East India Company? And we have not forgotten our query: Why should the East India Company spend robbed money from British India to get handwritten Sanskrit MSS. printed in Sanskrit letters in England? We must patiently wait to get an answer to our question and look out.

CHAPTER 16

“A CONFESSION” CAME PRIOR TO THE MOMENTS OF TRUTH. MOMENTS OF TRUTH BEGIN TO ARRIVE “One confession I have to make, and one for which I can hardly hope for absolution, whether from my friends or from my enemies. I have never done anything ; I have never been a doer, a canvasser, a wirepuller, a manager, in the ordinary sense of

these words.” We have just quoted the first two sentences from the last Chapter, the Chapter IX, of “My Autobiography”, titled: “A Confession” by Max Müller. His Chapter VIII is titled: Early Friends at Oxford. Accordingly he knew all celebrities at Oxford while he was just doing the job of, at best, a junior subeditor in a printing press. Well, we have dealt with this chapter. Of our three primary sources for our search we have thus just lost one due to the sudden break of “My Autobiography”. We feel, we should not withhold those last lines of “A Confession” before we depart from “My

Autobiography”. “What India teaches us is that in a state advancing towards civilization, there must be two castes or two classes of men, a caste of Brahmans or of thinkers, and a caste of Kshatriyas, who are to fight ; possibly other castes also those who are to work and of those who are to serve. Great wars went on in India, but these were left to be fought by the warriors by profession. The peasants in their villages remained quiet, accepting the consequences, whatever they may be, and the Brahmans lived on, thinking and dreaming in their forests, satisfied to rule after the battle was over.

And what applies to military struggles seems to me to apply to all struggles – political, religious, social, commercial, and even literary. Let those who love to fight, fight ; but let others who are fond of quiet work go on undisturbed in their own special callings. That was, as far as we can see, the old Indian idea, or at all events the ideal which the Brahmans wished to see realized. I do not stand up for utter idleness or sloth, not even for drones, though nature does not seem to condemn even hoc genus altogether. All I plead for, as a scholar and a thinker, is freedom from canvassing, letterreading, letter-writing, from

committees, deputations, meetings, public dinners, and all the rest. That will sound very selfish to the ears of practical men, and I understand why they should look upon men like myself as hardly worth their salt. But what should they say to one of the greatest fighters in the history of the world? What would they say to Julius Caesar, when he declares that the triumphs and the laurel wreaths of Cicero are as far nobler than those of warriors as it is a greater achievement to extend the boundaries of the Roman intellect than domains of the Roman people?” Max Müller has not disclosed why he

limited his autobiography at “Early days at Oxford”. We won’t speculate. We raise the issue and recall that his “My Autobiography” came out after his “Auld Lang Syne” which was published in 1899, a year before he expired at the age of 77. “Early days at Oxford” can be dated around 1848 only. This ultimate break in “My Autobiography” even much earlier than in the midst of life by Max Müller is intentionally done. We think, it is no wonder that a Sigmund Freud emerged in that wonder that was the culture of the Era of Vasco da Gama, which is still going strong.

***** We remember that “My Autobiography” by Max Müller tampers facts systematically. These manipulations could only be uncovered by the letters written by Friedrich Maximilian Müller to his mother. We have read the letter written on the Good Friday in 1850, immediately after his return to Oxford from Berlin via Paris. Thereafter he writes several letters up to the end of 1850. In his letter dated April 26, 1850 he reflects on “human being” and “humanity” in his usual manner. Otherwise it contains gossips and tittletattles only. The letters dated May 25, July 3, July 22, and September 3, 1850

carry no information, no reflections. From his letter of October 7, 1850 we however come to know: “I have already tried twice getting a sanction of the Directors of the East India Company to take the Handwrittens to Germany and to work there. Both efforts failed, but I do not give it up, I must wait for a good opportunity as refusals make the thing more difficult. Moreover, I must presently use the libraries both of Oxford and London constantly. The printing has slowed down, the flow of money is less and I must get adjusted. God spare me from losing my courage, on the contrary, the more adverse it comes, the greater is my

passion to do better. Now, time will tell, and we continue with our works, and God will help us.” Nothing substantial in the letter dated November 13, 1850. The last letter of the year is dated December 14. The only information in it is (highlighted by us): “I got an unexpected birthday gift. A professor here, a very good friend of mine, became recently mad and it seems to be improbable that he would resume his courses. As he teaches modern literature and languages, so I received a letter from the university enquiring whether I would undertake two of his courses up to the next vacation, at £ 50 for each course. I

cannot say that I was very eager to accept the offer as it would interrupt my other works – but friends in Oxford as well as Bunsen persuaded me and I have accepted and now I am extremely busy in drafting. The first course is on Nibelungen. If they would then like to make me a professor, I won’t object, though I shall prefer a professorship in Germany. Now we want to see how the cat jumps, as I am determined to become a professor in a year.” Friedrich Maximilian Müller is now twenty-seven. Yet he does not differentiate between fantasies, swindles and facts. Mentally he is almost an adult

by now. He does not like exchanging any details about his work with his mother. We remember, earlier he reported on issues, though never described or discussed any issue. In December 1850 he is settled at Oxford. For all practical purposes he has evolved from Friedrich Maximilian Müller to Dr. Max Müller “and all the rest” that goes with it. Therefore, we thankfully quit “the letters to his mother” as the most reliable source of authentic information. Thus our primary source of information is presently reduced to Georgina Max Müller. We definitely won’t depend on her translations and other fakes. We have lost two of our primary sources of information. Then we discover that we

gain also one source of reliable information at this point: documents kept in the British archives referring to the occupational career of Max Müller. We focus and depend on this source. This source is more authentically documented than that of the educational career of Friedrich Maximilian Müller. ***** Max Müller’s occupational career begins in April 1847 when he is over 23 years old. As we recall, he lands on the payroll of the East India Company at the level of an “Ensigns” or of a “Writer”. His duty would be to deliver a “compiled complete version of RigVeda with a Sanskrit commentary”, all

in Sanskrit letters for printing. The total number of the sheets is assessed to be 400. Per annum he will have to deliver 50 sheets. The East India Company will pay £4 a sheet. The proof reading is included in this sum. So, it is a contract for 8 years. It appears to be a clear and clean deal. Yet, we do not comprehend the interest of the East India Company, nor the nature of the work he factually was to perform. We keep aside all aspects of the qualifications of Max Müller. We look into what he actually does. We know: He was eager to copy handwritten manuscripts in the Sanskrit language in the library of the University of Berlin.

He did not copy them because he was financially stranded at Berlin. Then he went to Paris at the cost of “his family friend Hagedorn” and started copying those available handwritten manuscripts in the Sanskrit language and readily believed, these were parts of Rig-Veda. We take it. Then he was stranded financially at Paris as well and scratched his last resources, went to London, because: “While working in Paris I constantly felt the want of some essential MSS. which were at the Library of the East India Company in London, and my desire to visit England consequently grew stronger and stronger ; but I

had not the wherewithal to pay for the journey, much less for a stay of even a fortnight in London. At last (June, 1846) I thought that I had scraped together enough to warrant my starting.” We take this also. We must not repeat what he actually performed at London till he gets recruited by the East India Company. We only ascertain what he himself has maintained. He was permitted to take “handwritten manuscripts in the Sanskrit language” at home that he copied for his personal benefit. Was he entitled to do so? We let this also be. In April 1847 he gets into a contract

with the East India Company claiming that he would deliver “the only complete Rig-Veda in Sanskrit letters”, all in handwritten copies for print. He will read also proofs to ensure that printed Rig-Veda in Sanskrit letters is correctly set and printed. And this whole exercise will take eight years. On top of this, the East India Company is ready to pay him for this exercise 1600 £ and give him the rights to publish the whole under his name. The publications expenditures will also be covered by the East India Company. We must take a long breath and confess that we are absolutely unable to buy this fishy story. There must be some other things behind this contract. We must not

speculate. We continue our search and keep to the hard facts. We remember that Friedrich Maximilian Müller was under vigilance of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen between June 1846 and April 1847. He acted as intermediary between the East India Company and Friedrich Maximilian Müller. We have expressed our inability to comprehend, earlier too, how Friedrich Maximilian Müller was to deliver the “goods” without knowing the Sanskrit language. And we raise the obvious question too: How and by whom the quality of the “delivered goods” was to be checked when not a single person in Europe knew the

Sanskrit language? Who is his immediate boss? We all know that the East India Company maintained a strict pecking order. We must look out. Presently we know only that he remains all the time loyal “folk of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in London”. We are yet to find an adequate answer to our question: Why the East India Company should be eager to spend looted money from British India to get delivery of a book printed in Sanskrit characters in England at all? It is all the more surprising finding out that a copy of the complete Rig-Veda in Sanskrit characters was already available in the library of the East India

Company, 7, Leadenhall Street, London. On top of it, the beginning part that Max Müller was to deliver, his first 50 sheets, were already available in printed form with Latin translation since 1838 in the library of the East India Company, a library under the direct control of Horace Hayman Wilson since 1836. We are genuinely puzzled. We shall get to this puzzle in a little while. ***** For the moment we put two and two together. Friedrich Maximilian Müller was in the seventh heaven getting the contract in 1847. We remember his confessions to his mother:

“I did not have any pence left and that I was not able to earn myself in spite all efforts, and would have been compelled to return to Germany if Bunsen would not have supported and helped me with words and deeds. It was indeed a bad time, and after it is over, and now I may express it also. I saw, the decisive turning-point of my life arriving in spite of all uncertainties and was only a few steps away from my goal, yet I would not have been in a position to await, but be compelled to get back to Germany, to give up my favourite studies, if not entirely, but at least partly, earning my miserable living at a school or by giving private

language-lessons.” As Dr. Max Müller, he primitively believed also to “have really achieved ... autonomy and independency” being a lowest-graded mercenary of the British Kingdom. In his self-complacency he supplanted as well the fact that the whole credit of his recruitment was due to his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, the Prussian Ambassador at London, and not to his accomplishments or to his merits. He however has to learn soon, his life in London was like that of living in a cage under a careful watch-dog. This watchdog is none else than Horace Hayman Wilson. After a few months stay, in May

1848, he can flee from London to Oxford believing thus to achieve “autonomy and independency” there. We are not concerned in this context with "beliefs” of Max Müller. We are concerned to comprehend why Horace Hayman Wilson permits him to shift to Oxford to get Sanskrit texts printed by the Oxford University Press although the Sanskrit characters for printing are available since quite early in the Kolkata establishment as well as also in London. We raise this issue and leave it, as not yet clarified, but raising our questions that follow: Is it because that the printing press at London was not attached to a University and Oxford University Press

sounded well, or had there been other reasons? In Oxford, too, Dr. Max Müller has to learn that there is no way out from his cage carefully watched by Horace Hayman Wilson. We remember how home sick Max Müller was from the letters to his mother. He does not get leave. He takes it. He decides to deliver the goods, continues to rely on the will of his God in absolute faith and remains loyal to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. We remember also his own words: “My work is progressing and I hope to send out my first child (Erstgeborenen) in the world. B. is extraordinarily friendly to me ..., and I

believe, once my first volume is published, he (Christian Charles Josias Bunsen) will get him a scholarship from the Government of Prussia.” We remember also the lines: “I can write to you in hurry only that I am quite fine here, that Bunsen has received me extremely friendly as the son of his Friend and promised his help in all respect. I have then explained to him my situation, told him that my works, on which he is also interested, needed a long stay in London, and he assured me that I did find a friend in him and that he will take care for me like a father cared for a son.”

We do not know how much he had “explained to him my situation“, to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. If he did confess that he is unable to produce a certificate of his Doctor Degree, that he had swindled claiming that he had earned his doctor degree, then, he will ever “belong to the folk of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen”. We know only that he continued to operate as “Dr. Max Müller”, as a Sanskrit scholar in Paris as well as in London. Probably he did confess his “big sin”. Otherwise his letter of October 8, 1848 to his Patron will not make any sense. We remember: “I think of going to London for a few

days early next week to do some work at the East India House. It would be a great delight to me if I could see you for a few minutes, to ask your advice in a matter which occupies me a good deal. ... With all my love of the past, and with a full belief in the future of Germany, I feel more drawn at present to English than to German soil. My work will keep me in England for the next few years ; and as Oxford is a very pleasant place of residence, I have an idea of entering one of the Colleges as an undergraduate, keeping my twelve terms, and then taking my degree. I should hope to defray the expense by my own work, and the competition in

the Oriental market is so small, that my prospects later on would probably not be bad. .. My work goes on merrily; seventy-two sheets are printed, and I am writing the preface, which often overwhelms me; but I have time till Easter, when the first two volumes and the preface will appear. Dr. Pauli is still living with me, but he has a good chance of being appointed to the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh. In the hope of soon having the happiness of seeing you, I am, with my whole heart, yours obediently.” During Max Müller’s “Early days at Oxford” in 1848 he must have acquired

that much of the English language that he can read the many published writings on Sanskrit literature, on the language Sanskrit and can use the SanskritEnglish-Dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson. Whatsoever. In Oxford he starts marketing himself as the first “collector” of a complete version of Rig-Veda in Sanskrit characters, which he copied from “handwrittens” kept in Berlin, Paris, London and Oxford. And that “The Honourable The East-IndiaCompany” of the British Kingdom is getting this unique collection printed at the Oxford University Press. Thus he probably starts believing to have achieved greatness being permitted

to “edit” this Rig-Veda. “In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.” He knows also that in a “Continent of Circe” talking heads win. And he has practiced talking. No one puts the simplest question to Dr. Max Müller. How does Max Müller come to know all that he is claiming? None around in Europe knew the Sanskrit language. None of the so-called scholars was ready to take the risk of asking that simple question. It has not escaped our attention that Max Müller has not yet specifically claimed that he has learnt and is proficient in the Sanskrit Language. He merely copies and “collates handwrittens” in Sanskrit and compiles the complete version of Rig-

Veda only. And he gets his claim through quite naturally. ***** His cage in Oxford is however no better. He tries to find a short break in-between proposing to publish the first volume in two parts. In this process only we came to know that Horace Hayman Wilson was his watch-dog. He turns down his proposal. No discussions. Thereafter Max Müller proposes to be permitted to write an elaborate introduction to the first edition. Even he realizes that simply printing a Sanskrit text does not make sense without an introduction as no one can read and understand the language in Europe. Horace Hayman Wilson

rejects. Again we become apprehensive. What is the purpose of this printing exercise and recruitment of Friedrich Maximilian Müller as a mercenary for this, as such, absurd and useless proposition? And the East India Company is ready to keep him for eight years? Is there anything behind? We repeat also our question: Why the East India Company should be eager to spend looted money from British India to get delivery of a book printed in Sanskrit characters in England at all? Max Müller proposes going home on leave. Horace Hayman Wilson rejects

bluntly a leave till the first volume is published. Max Müller proposes to continue with his work with the manuscripts in Germany too. Horace Hayman Wilson rejects. And he is angry that Max Müller had applied to the “Board” of the East India Company for a leave without his knowledge. All these things happen in mid 1849. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen manages to organise that Max Müller gets a leave of three months, but only after the first volume is printed. Thereafter he will continue with his duty at Oxford. We remember that in midOctober he reaches Berlin. We remember also that he even keeps mum

in the whole of 1850 about his “first child (Erstgeborenen) in the world” or of his bringing “an Indian Nabub” to the world. What happened? We don’t find any reason to hide away Max Müller’s “first child (Erstgeborenen) in the world”, or his bringing “an Indian Nabub” to the world.” We have examined this volume that was printed in October 1849. Here it is.

The volume is dedicated individually to the 24 Directors of Board with their full names.

The volume was PRINTED BY T. COMBE, PRINTER OF THE UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, in October 1849. It contains a PREFACE written by M. M., Oxford, October 1849.

The preface is mainly a thanksgiving referring to names known to us and it

contains a little bit of introduction also. Thereafter more than 1000 pages of Sanskrit texts which no one in Europe, including Max Müller, could read and understand. For already known reasons we decline to get into a discussion on the preface, however, we read in it and find a few lines of interest for our search. Ø “After five years spent in the collection of materials for an Edition of the Rig-veda and its Sanskrit Commentary by Sayanacharya … Ø ... no literary work was of greater importance and interest to the philologer, the historian, and

philosopher, than the Veda, the oldest literary monument of the Indo-European world. ... Ø ... Vaidik MSS. Ø ... The final success, however, of this undertaking is owing to the well-known liberality of the Honourable the Court of Directors of the East-IndiaCompany ... Ø ... This first edition, however, of the Rig-veda and its Sanskrit Commentary is not intended for the general scholar, but only for those who make Sanskrit their special study, and for those

among the natives of India who are still able to read their own Sacred Books in the language of the original. ...” ***** After reading these lines in the preface we have started to give a second thought to our query: Why was the East India Company to spend looted money from British India at all to get delivery of handwritten Sanskrit MSS. printed in Sanskrit characters in England? We take it as fact that the “Preface” was duly sanctioned. The “Preface” informs us vaguely about the function of this publication in October 1849 (highlighted by us): “... no literary work was of

greater importance and interest to the philologer, the historian, and philosopher, than the Veda, the oldest literary monument of the IndoEuropean world.” What is this “Indo-European world.”? What have the Vedas of Bharatavarsa, there are four Vedas, to do with the “Indo-European world.”? We let “... Vaidik MSS.” and “the wellknown liberality of the Honourable the Court of Directors of the EastIndia-Company ...” remain uncommented. But we cannot let the last part of the quotation from Max Müller’s “preface” go: “This first edition,

however, of the Rig-veda and its Sanskrit Commentary is ... for those among the natives of India who are still able to read their own Sacred Books in the language of the original. ...” What does this mean? What should it mean? Does it or should it mean that a Sanskrit ignorant like Max Müller makes it possible that Sanskrit scholars in Bharatavarsa, are placed in the position “to read their own Sacred Books in the language of the original. ...”? Does it not suggest that “the natives of India” did not possess the real original Rig-Veda anymore? Does it indicate that the real original Rig-Veda

got robbed or lost? Does it not claim that “THE HONOURABLE THE EAST- INDIACOMPANY”, represented by “the Honourable the Court of Directors” and aided by “THEIR OBEDIENT SERVANT, MAX MÜLLER rediscover “THIS ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE EARLY INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIVES OF INDIA”? What is meant by “Sacred

Books”? We take a note of raising these questions for all it may concern. In due course we shall evaluate the raised issues that are behind these questions. ***** We apologise presently and take an aside looking back a little. We are reminded of all those mischief of the

Jesuit Roberto de Nobili (1577 –1656), operating in the south of Bharatavarsa. He had claimed as early as in November 1606, with Pope’s blessings, that he had arrived there as “the teacher of wisdom”, a Roman “Sannyasin”, as a descendent of the migrants from the Vedic society to the Mediterranean in the time immemorial. These migrants from the Vedic society developed the Vedas further as Romans and composed the Gospel. So was the claim. Thus the Jesuit Roberto de Nobili tried to propagate the Gospel as the more advanced book than the Vedas in Bharatavarsa. Further he claimed that a part of Veda was not actually lost, what many people believed. The migrants to

Rome took this part along with them and developed it further. He, the Jesuit missionary, was now bringing back “the lost Veda” to Bharatavarsa, much improved as “the teacher of wisdom”, as a Roman “Sannyasin”. We may not elaborate more in our present context. Enough is enough, isn’t? The Vatican and the Roman Catholics failed in that undertaking. Then the Britons propagated that they belonged to the family of the “Indo-Europeans” like the people of Bharatavarsa whilst they were thoroughly busy shamelessly exploiting Bharatavarsa. We refer to William Jones (1746 – 1794) only to put it in a nutshell. For both instances we

refer to “LIES WITH LONG LEGS” for many revealing details. Presently we recall that Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765–1837) had brought a collection of Sanskrit MSS. to Britain in 1814 that included also a copy of the Rig-Veda. He gave his collection “to the E. I. Co.’s library” at 7, Leadenhall Street, London in 1818. Henry Thomas Colebrooke was that colonial writer who did not get any formal education. His father George Colebrooke (1729 – 1809), a member of the House of Commons in London and known in that house as a spokesman of the East India Company, like the later Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859),

became a director in the East India Company in 1767 and in 1769 its chairman, had let his son to be recruited as a “writer” and asked his friend Warren Hastings (1730 – 1818) in Kolkata, in 1783, to make something out of him. Henry Thomas Colebrooke wrote his first report in 1794: “Remarks on the Present State of Husbandry and Commerce in Bengal” when he was 29 years old. He handed down “an essay on the Vedas (1805)”, for a long time the standard work in English on the subject, though there is no evidence showing that he ever learnt the language of the Vedas. He installed in 1811

Horace Hayman Wilson (1786 – 1860) in Kolkata as secretary to the “Asiatick Society of Bengal”, as mentioned earlier. We remember also the young German Friedrich August Rosen (1805 – 1837), who claimed to have learnt Sanskrit from Franz Bopp (1791 –1867) in Berlin, started translating the entire RigVeda in 1831 into Latin. He made use of the MSS. brought by Henry Thomas Colebrooke. These included Rig-Veda, Sayanacharya’s commentary (yes, it is the same commentary referred by Max Müller) and five other MSS., all in “Devanagari” characters. These were kept in “the library of the Honourable

the East-India Company”. He died too early in 1837. Posthumously in 1838 his translation of the first book of the Rig −Veda was published at London. Friedrich August Rosen had never had an opportunity to hear the sound of that ancient language called Sanskrit, alike his teacher Franz Bopp. The wonder that is this European culture! Horace Hayman Wilson returned to Britain in 1832, we remember, and carried a lot of Sanskrit MSS. with him, became the first Boden-Professor in Sanskrit at Oxford University in 1832 and in 1836 the Librarian of the East India Company, 7, Leadenhall Street, London. He was also engaged in

translating the Rig-Veda into English. His manuscript base is not handeddown. We remember, Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer (1805 – 1866), who resigned as a professor of philosophy at Berlin in 1839 to sell his services of the East India Company and was subsequently sent to Kolkata. In 1841 he took over the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. He learnt Sanskrit from Franz Bopp and it seems, he continued to learn the language at Kolkata. In 1847, i.e. six years after he had taken over the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, he planned to begin translating the RigVeda. He was stopped because Dr. Max

Müller was recruited to compile “Rigveda” in Sanskrit letters assigned by the East India Company in London. He was the second European after Heinrich Roth who most probably learnt the Sanskrit language with its sounds in British India for quite a long period. He stayed in Kolkata for 22 years. His publications were not circulated in Europe. He was not called by any European university to teach the Sanskrit language. Amongst hundreds of names in Max Müller’s “My Autobiography” and in “Auld Lang Syne” Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer is not included in the index. Does it mean something? What does it mean?

Why was Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer not asked to print his copy of Rig-Veda and send it to London? Taking all this into account, we have amended our question: Why the East India Company was spending looted money from British India to get delivery of handwritten Sanskrit MSS. printed in Sanskrit letters in England at all? Now we ask: Why should this Company spend money on Max Müller asking him to deliver something which the Company already possessed? Why? What does it indicate? There is another parallel issue that puzzles us as well. In October 1849 the East India Company published the first

volume of Rig Veda in Sanskrit letters edited by Dr. Max Müller. The same company published the first volume of Rig Veda in English translation in 1850, translated by Horace Hayman Wilson from Sanskrit original. He wrote his introduction in July 1, 1850. We read the first paragraph of the “Introduction” written by Horace Hayman Wilson (highlighted by us): “When the liberal patronage of the Court of Directors of the East India Company enabled Dr. Max Müller to undertake his invaluable edition of the Rig-Veda, a wish was expressed that its appearance should be accompanied or followed, with all

convenient despatch, by an English translation. As I had long contemplated such a work, and had made some progress in its execution, even before leaving India, I readily undertook to complete my labours and publish the translation.” From which Sanskrit Original did Horace Hayman Wilson translate? He had started the translation even before he left India and completed the translation before the month of July 1850. So, it could not be the Sanskrit text published by Dr. Max Müller. What was really being played by the East India Company? We shall search for a reliable answer.

***** We get back to the career of Dr. Max Müller. After October 20, 1849 he stays mainly in Berlin up to the end of March 1850. After celebrating Christmas with his mother he tried to find a job in Germany. Obviously he felt extremely uncomfortable in his Oxford cage. We let all those stories be, including that of “meeting the King”. The hard fact remains that he does not find any prospect in Germany to escape from his cage of a mercenary in Oxford. In spite of his maximum endeavours he does not find any job in Germany, not even the job of the librarian in Anhalt-Dessau. There is nothing on record that Dr. Max

Müller ever requested Christian Charles Josias Bunsen to get him a scholarship from the Prussian Government or make use of his influence to get him a job somewhere in Germany. On the contrary. All documents indicate that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was eager to keep him in England as a loyal member of his folk. Max Müller knew that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen had met the later King of Prussia, Frederick William IV, in 1828 in Rome and since then they exchanged their ideas of political and social developments in Prussia in a greater context in correspondences. Both thought over perspectives of the evangelical religion and of the Anglican Church. Yet

Max Müller did never wonder that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen refrained from doing anything for him in Germany. Why? As we already mentioned, Wilhelm von Humboldt as Minister in Prussia got Franz Bopp a professorship in Sanskrit at Berlin University, although the latter failed twice to get his doctorate degree in Aschaffenburg. Franz Bopp never earned another academic certificate after his two years course in philology there. Max Müller took help of Alexander von Humboldt in Berlin to be introduced to the King Frederick William IV in 1850, if we trust Friedrich Maximilian Müller’s report.

It is not on record that Max Müller ever reported to his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen about his meeting the King Frederick William IV in 1850. We conclude that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen knew about Max Müller’s swindle of his acquiring a Doctor Degree in Germany. He knew that he would not be able to undo Max Müller’s blunder in Germany and getting him a post. And he knew naturally, he will be losing one of his folk for whom he had invested to get him integrated into his folk. Instead he made use of his influence in the East India Company to get Max

Müller a leave of three months knowing well that Max Müller will try his utmost to flee from his cage in England. We assume also that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen took a calculated risk of losing one of his loyal folk. He estimated rightly. Max Müller did not get a chance of a job in Germany. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen knew also as a power exercising person that after Max Müller’s failure he will continue all the more loyal than ever to belong to his folk in England, and remain at his disposal unconditionally. So it was. Before Max Müller ultimately faces the moment of truth that there is no way out

to escape from the “safe haven” called “The East India Company”, he absconded from his contracted duty for almost three months. He was to return to Oxford in mid January. His watch dog, Horace Hayman Wilson, became impatient. It was his duty to see that Max Müller delivers the goods, i.e. delivers complete handwritten Sanskrit copies for printing the “complete Rig-Veda texts from original Sanskrit handwritten manuscripts kept scattered in libraries in Berlin, Paris, London and Oxford”. In the pecking order of the East India Company Horace Hayman Wilson was not placed high enough to be permitted

to neglect his duty of vigilance. He had also his watch-dogs. He was always an obedient servant. We recall, he was sent out to Kolkata as assistant surgeon but served the East India Company in minting coins there, additionally as secretary to the Asiatick society of Bengal since 1811, as compiler of the first Sanskrit-English-Dictionary in 1819. He was presently enjoying his reward as the holder of first Boden chair of Sanskrit at Oxford University since 1832 and as the librarian of the East India Company in London since 1836. Yet, he was not consulted when the contract was made with Max Müller in 1847.

Horace Hayman Wilson served in Kolkata for 24 years. He developed his interest in the Sanskrit language. He knew definitely more about Sanskrit literature through communications with his “Pandits” in Kolkata for a long period. Probably he knew more about the Sanskrit language than anybody else in Europe in 1847. Presently he is engaged translating the whole of RigVeda into English, based on “his” dictionary. Others are also engaged translating the Rig-Veda aided by the same dictionary. We have not come across any comments by him on the merits of the contract with Max Müller. We assume that his

knowledge of the Sanskrit language was not commanding enough to challenge the claims of Max Müller, or he knew that the decision on the contract was taken at the policy making level of the Board of Directors, where Thomas Babington Macaulay had his decisive say. We shall get back to the role of Thomas Babington Macaulay in due course. Horace Hayman Wilson was far away from the level of policy-making. As the watch- dog of Max Müller he is genuinely in a bad fix. He knows that Max Müller belongs to the folk of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. He knows also that Thomas Babington Macaulay gets invitations of Christian

Charles Josias Bunsen in his social gatherings. And he is officially the vigilant of Max Müller on behalf of the East India Company. He ultimately decides to write to Max Müller to Berlin demanding his immediate return to join his duty as politely as possible. After all most six weeks had lapsed he writes from Oxford on February 26, 1850 (highlighted by us): “My dear Müller, I had hoped to have seen you in Oxford on the occasion of my visit there, but it is now drawing to a close, and I understand there is no prospect of your early arrival. I regret this much, as unless we can

proceed a little quicker than we have done with the printing of the Rigveda, I fear I shall scarcely live to see it finished, in time at least to finish the translation ; unless I do as Langlois has done, and go to work upon the MSS. only. In that case I should have to walk off with all the India House copies, and leave you to the Bodleian alone. The only other expedient I can think of is to summon some other Vaidik—Roth, for instance —to your help ; but seriously I wish you would soon resume your labours. It is high time to put a stop to all the wild fancies that a partial knowledge of the light and a reliance upon such equivocal guides as the Brahmanas

and Sutras seem likely to engender. I want you also to help in the distribution of the copies. I have the Court's sanction to the presentation of above 100 copies to different public bodies and eminent individuals both here and abroad. If I cannot expect your assistance in carrying this sanction into effect, I must do as well as I can without it, but it is a task that will give me some trouble. I have finished the translation, and printed about half of it. It will be completed, I hope, in about six weeks. Trithen and your other Oxford friends are all well, and will be glad to see you again amongst them.

Yours sincerely, ' H. H. Wilson.'” We must not comment the tune of the letter. It is self-evident. But we take note of “Langlois”. This “Langlois” was Alexandre Langlois, (1788 – 1854) a Paris born British-India-fan, who translated two “translated” volumes by Horace Hayman Wilson from English to French in 1828. He is also caught by the fever of translating the Rig−Veda in Europe. Horace Hayman Wilson’s Sanskrit−English−Dictionary made it possible. We recall that Friedrich August Rosen took up the translation of the Rig-Veda as the first European. He died too early, in 1837. Alexandre

Langlois started as the second European a French translation of the Rig-Veda and published his first volume in 1848 in Paris. He took the copy of Rig−Veda that was kept in the library in Paris, took the dictionary compiled by Horace Hayman Wilson and claimed to have translated the text into French from the Sanskrit original. We must confess that we don’t understand the anger expressed by Horace Hayman Wilson in the halfsentence: “unless I do as Langlois has done, and go to work upon the MSS. only.” What was wrong in that mode, if he really was able to do the same? He could have done this between 1819 and

1832 with the additional help of his “Pandits” in Kolkata. He could have done this between 1832 and 1838. And he could have done it after Friedrich August Rosen’s posthumous incomplete translation came out in London in 1838. Obviously Horace Hayman Wilson started too late. By February 1850 he wanted to have completed: “I have finished the translation, and printed about half of it. It will be completed, I hope, in about six weeks.” It does not escape our attention that Horace Hayman Wilson was the first Boden- Chair holder of Sanskrit at Oxford University. This chair was established with the sole purpose to

translate the Bible into Sanskrit. In 1850 he was holding the Boden-Chair for 18 years. There is nothing on record that he ever started the translation, the Bible into the Sanskrit language. He was also unable to get this project started by some other “Sanskrit scholars”. There was none. As a matter of fact, the purpose of Boden-Chair of Sanskrit at Oxford was a Sanskrit translation of the Bible. The Boden-Chair of Sanskrit at Oxford still exists. But there is no Sanskrit translation of the Bible yet. This throws a remarkable light upon the contractual compliance and on the moral of the socalled elite university at Oxford.

As a matter of fact Oxford University was the “intellectual wing” of the East India Company to rationalize and effectively cover up the doings of the British Kingdom during the Era of Vasco da Gama, like all other universities do, not only in England. It is high time to think about the role of the European universities in general and of the so-called elite universities “of the West” in particular. What kind of “elites” are they producing and what has this production to do with genuine knowledge? In our simplicity of mind we also differentiate between science and technology. And technology is never a synonym for science.

The total failure of Horace Hayman Wilson to fulfil his contractual assignment, i.e. to translate the Bible into Sanskrit makes it evident that he did not have command over the language called Sanskrit. We question also the quality of the Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary compiled by him. In this light we quote again that part of his letter to Max Müller dated February 26, 1850: “unless we can proceed a little quicker than we have done with the printing of the Rig-veda, I fear I shall scarcely live to see it finished, in time at least to finish the translation ; unless I do as Langlois has done, and go to work upon the MSS. only.”

***** Max Müller had no chance of a job in Germany. Yet he stays on for almost another two months. Was he earning money during this period? We do not know. We do not know as well, how he managed his living there? All the time he was in need of money. Anyway, he gets back to Oxford and becomes again the most obedient servant of the East India Company. He accomplished this. There are no documented comments by Horace Hayman Wilson on this issue of his long absence from Oxford. Whatsoever. Before Max Müller reaches Oxford to resume duty, he vainly tries to meet Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in

London. From Oxford he writes a long letter to him, reproduced by Georgina Max Müller (p. 108 – 109), again without a date and in her polished English translation. We focus on facts relevant for our search only. These are, as his usual practice, packed between general remarks on God, Germany in the beginning and nice things at the end of the letter. There is no hint on his failure in Germany to find a job or that he met Alexander von Humboldt and the King of Prussia also. We quote from Georgina Max Müller (highlighted by us): “... Should the thunder-clouds of civil war really burst over Germany, the

German Emperor would come, not from Schmerling or Gagern, but by the grace of God. How much I wish to see you, how many questions I would gladly have answered ! But your invitation now in the midst of all your business is too much for me to accept, though I cannot be certain that a strong influence may not drive me to London for a few hours. I am expecting a lot of MSS. from India, which I have bought for myself, as I did not think that the Berlin Library (Berlin Library?) would receive permission for such things at this moment. I am in direct correspondence with the Asiatic Society in Calcutta (With whom? With

Johann Heinrich Eduard Roeer?). My old Veda is a real comfort to me, despite all the wearisomeness of the difficult and yet mechanical work of revision, but it will require much time and labour before the end is possible. Mr. Langlois, Professor of Rhetoric, has made the task much easier to himself. Without commentary, and, as he proudly says, without philological considerations, he has translated the Veda straight away very cavalierement : the two first books have just appeared at Didot's. One cannot enter into discussion with a man of this sort, and yet it is provoking, for the book is easy to read, and from the first page will give

ideas of the Veda which will afterwards cost much trouble to remove, just as people now use and quote the translation of the Ezourveda by Voltaire (All about Ezourveda fabricated by Robrto de Nobili is in the book LIES WITH LONG LEGS.). An approximate translation of the Veda can be made, and I believe that even Wilson's English translation will only be approximate. And yet if I had to wait ten years, I would not translate a single line till the whole Vedic antiquity with its wealth of thought lay clearly before me. If you take a hymn from the last book of the Rig-veda interesting for social considerations and moral ideas, as a

whole it is clear, but the sequence of ideas is very difficult. Forgive this long scrawl. You need not read it all, and to-morrow is Ash Wednesday, when all diplomatists must do special penance for last year. The poor Pope must cover his head with ashes, and the new Roman Commonwealth will be a common misery." We are thunderstruck while we read: “An approximate translation of the Veda can be made, and I believe that even Wilson's English translation will only be approximate. And yet if I had to wait ten years, I would not translate a single line till the whole Vedic antiquity with its wealth of thought lay

clearly before me.” Max Müller did not possess the slightest scruple, if this letter without a date is not another fake presented by Georgina Max Müller. We know by now that Max Müller had never learnt the Sanskrit language. In all probability Christian Charles Josias Bunsen could assume this also, as none around in Europe was proficient in the language called Sanskrit. Nonetheless he writes: “And yet if I had to wait ten years, I would not translate a single line till the whole Vedic antiquity with its wealth of thought lay clearly before me.” And Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was his only patron. Well, he belied his

mother also all the time. Georgina Max Müller served another letter to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen that smells like an obvious fake (p. 112). We reproduce this letter, again without a date, along with her sly introduction (highlighted by us): “From the following letter it is evident that his Vedic studies were beginning to attract general attention, and that an article on the subject was desired for one of the great Quarterly Reviews :— To Chevalier Bunsen. Translation. 9, Park Place, Oxford, July, 1850.

'Your Excellency,— I feel much refreshed spiritually by having been in your presence, which always acts like fresh spring rain on dusty fields; physically I feel better, though I cannot say well yet, and though the body ought to be subject to the spirit, still the spirit has only too often to follow the lead of the body. With regard to Empson's (Empson? We did not find him in the Indexes of Max Müller’s books. Was he not celebrated enough?) and Dr. Wilson’s letters, it is difficult to advise. I have no doubt whatever, that something can be written about the Veda which

would reach even the dullest ears. Whether Dr. Wilson can undertake that task is another question. You know the dry hard shell in which the Veda is presented to us, and which seems still harder and more wooden in the English translation. Nevertheless I of course shall be glad if the Rig-veda is dealt with in the Edinburgh Review, and if Wilson would write from the standpoint of a missionary, and would show how the knowledge and bringing into light of the Veda would upset the whole existing system of Indian theology, it might become of real interest.'” Probably this Empson was William

Empson (1791 – 1852), attached to “The East India Company’s College in Haileybury”, successor of Macvey Napier in 1847 as the editor of the Edinburgh Review. As an “offensive” writer in Edinburgh Review he earned the reputation of “a bad imitator of Macaulay”. He did get an entry to the Dictionary of National Biography published in London. We read the letter quoted above again and again. Every time we are missing to find: “From the following letter it is evident that his Vedic studies were beginning to attract general attention, and that an article on the

subject was desired for one of the great Quarterly Reviews : We read instead: “Nevertheless I of course shall be glad if the Rig-veda is dealt with in the Edinburgh Review, and if Wilson ...”. How does Max Müller’s Vedic “studies” come in, if Horace Hayman Wilson would write an article “from the standpoint of a missionary”? (Obviously Georgina Max Müller was ignorant of the fact that “Quarterly Review” was set up as a journal in London to influence the opinion of Britons in the beginning of the 19th. Century countering the influence of the then powerful “Edinburgh Review” run

by Scottish academicians. But this was obviously not enough. Georgina Max Müller continued on the same page 112, immediately after the end of the above letter with the lines below:) “Only a few days after writing the above, Max Müller heard from Bunsen that Eastwick, the translator of Bopp's Comparative Grammar, wished for a review of it in the Quarterly (In which quarterly?), and urging him to undertake it. This is the first mention (It is now July 1850!) of the article (A book review is not an Article.) which appeared ultimately in the Edinburgh Review in October, 1851 (in October, 1851!), and which

was the first of several articles written by Max Müller for that periodical.” Georgina Max Müller reproduced another letter (p. 115) without a date to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, again in her “translation”, referring to November 1850 only. In a long letter by Max Müller we suddenly read in the middle part: “I am thinking of writing to Lassen to ask him whether he can employ me in Bonn. I am heartily tired of England, and if there is nothing in Germany I will try India. My work is entirely at a standstill, my MSS. from India lost for the second time by the shipwreck

of the Manchester. I must therefore come to a decision.” This Lassen is actually Christian Lassen (1800 - 1876), a NorwegianGerman orientalist, learnt Sanskrit in Bonn from August Wilhelm von Schlegel and as mentioned earlier, jointly published his first work with Eugène Burnouf, Essai sur le Pâli (Paris, 1826). Max Müller has become desperate. He does not see any prospects in Oxford. He does not stand any more his living from hand to mouth since years. And he is still plagued by his chronic headaches since his childhood. He has reached the border line of his endurance. Christian

Charles Josias Bunsen realized that the past years of his hardship were enough of training. He would not like to lose Max Müller just like that. He seems to have other plans with him. He obviously called Max Müller to meet him. This we come to know from Max Müller’s letter to his mentor and patron dated December 13, 1850: “Many thanks for the kind sympathy which, even in the storm and Stress of these evil times, you, an always faithful friend, have shown me. ... If Lassen makes difficulties I must decide to stay in England, till a kindly fate leads me out of the Oxford hermit's cell, into free German air, or

into a forest solitude in India.” Christian Charles Josias Bunsen is ready to take Max Müller out of the present low level of existence and place him better. Suddenly things begin to take a favourable turn for Max Müller. We recall what Friedrich Maximilian Müller wrote to his mother on December 14, 1850. We translated the only informative part of that letter in his diction and style, which was, to put it mildly, without any compassion for his “very good friend”. Strange, but it is typical of Max Müller: “I got an unexpected birthday gift. A professor here, a very good friend of mine, became recently mad and it

seems to be improbable that he would resume his courses. As he teaches modern literature and languages, so I received a letter from the university enquiring whether I would take over two of his courses up to the next vacation (Hundtagsferien), at £ 50 for each course. I cannot say that I was very eager to accept the offer as it would interrupt my other works – but friends in Oxford as well as Bunsen persuaded me and I have accepted and now extremely busy in drafting to fulfil the assignment. The first course is on the History and Origin Modern Languages. The second on Nibelungen. If they would then like to make me a professor, I won’t object,

though I shall prefer a professorship in Germany. Now we want to see how the cat jumps, as I am determined to become a professor in a year.” We reproduce first the German original and then Georgina Max Müller’s translation: “Ich kriegte noch zum Geburtstag folgendes unerwartetes Geschenk. Ein hiesiger Professor, ein sehr guter Freund von mir, war seit einiger Zeit verrückt geworden, und es ist wenig Aussicht daß er seine Vorlesungen wieder wird halten können. Da diese sich nun auf neuere Literatur und Sprache beziehen, so erhielt ich einen Brief von der Universität, ob ich bis

nächste Hundtagsferien 2 Curse Vorlesungen halten wollte, indem ich für jeden 50 Pfund kriege. Ich kann nicht sagen, daß mir viel daran gelegen war, da es meine anderen Arbeiten sehr unterbrechen wird – da mir aber meine Oxforder Freunde und auch Bunsen sehr zuredeten, so habe ich es angenommen und schreibe nun was das Zeug hält, um damit fertig zu werden. Der erste Curs wird über die Geschichte und den Ursprung der neueren Sprachen sein, der zweite über die Nibelungen. Wenn sie mich dann zum Professor machen wollen, habe ich nichts dagegen obgleich mir eine Deutsche Professur doch lieber wäre. Nun wir wollen ja sehen wie

der Hase läuft, denn ich habe mir eigentlich vorgenommen, übers Jahr Professor zu sein.” Georgina Max Müller’s translation of the letter to his mother was not only polished in a polite diction in English. This style is completely alien to Max Müller. She manipulated also facts: “I received for my birthday a quite unexpected present, a letter from the University asking me to lecture in the place of Trithen, who is very ill. He lectures on modern literature and languages. I cannot say I care very much for it, as it must break into my other work, but as my Oxford friends and also Bunsen were very anxious I

should undertake it, I wrote to accept. The first course will be on the History and Origin of Modern Languages, and the second on the Nibelungen. If they make me a Professor, I shall not object to it, though I should prefer a German Professorship. Well, we shall see.” But the actual facts were distorted by both Max Müller and Georgina Max Müller. Max Müller did get a letter, but not from the “University”, which meant Oxford University. “Trithen” was actually Dr. phil. Francis (or Frederick) Henry Trithen who became the first Professor of “Modern European Languages in the Taylorian

Institution”. We mentioned the details about him in the last chapter. Taylorian Institution at Oxford was not a part of Oxford University. The status of the University professors at Oxford is much higher than a professor in the Taylorian Institution. There was a gulf of difference in salaries also. Both Max Müller and Georgina Max Müller wanted us to believe that in 1850 Max Müller became a member of the prestigious Oxford University. It is not the truth. Francis Henry Trithen fell mentally sick shortly after his appointment. For quite some time he was unable to undertake his courses. Max Müller was just a substitute for some of

the duties of Francis Henry Trithen. Was he just around or was he smuggled in by his mentor? We do not know. We note only the coincidence. When Max Müller’s mental crisis reached the peak by the end of 1850, this remarkable thing happened then. We have reasons to think, it was not just a coincidence. The curators of the Taylor Institution decided in their meeting to offer Max Müller a part of the courses of Francis Henry Trithen. The procedures of decisions were stipulated at the Taylorians. A meeting with agendas were to be called in writing. The body of the curators kept minutes of their meetings. Max Müller’s temporary

assignment was decided in a meeting. We have approached the Taylor Institution to provide us the minutes of that meeting. We were told that the minutes of that meeting were no more available in the archive of the Taylor Institution. We know only that it was decided in a meeting of the Curators on November 30, 1850. But no other documents exist in the archive of the Taylorians in this regard; nor in other archives at Oxford. There is ample room for speculations. Someone must have pleaded for that appointment. We only take a note that this decision of the curators doubled the income of Max Müller, another £ 200

per annum. We view a few remarkable aspects. At Oxford Max Müller did nothing else than fulfilling the job of a clerk or of a junior sub-editor. He had nothing to do with the Taylor Institution. He only knew Francis Henry Trithen. In November 30, 1850 Max Müller was going to be 27 years old. He did not have opportunities to get acquainted with persons of high administrative level. Someone must have recommended him to the Curators of the Taylor Institution. We are unable to find this “someone” simply because there are no documents. We have searched thoroughly. Why it is so that there are no documents in the

archives on this issue? Then the question of Max Müller’s qualifications arises. How could the Curators of the Taylor Institution check his qualifications for that teaching assignment? Did he apply? Was there a hearing? Again, no documents are available. We know also that he did not have the slightest practice in teaching. Yet he was appointed. What was being played behind the closed doors? Who were the power-brokers? Max Müller never studied modern languages. In Leipzig he studied Greek, Latin and his vernacular, i.e. German. When he left Paris, he spoke broken French only. Even in 1850 he does not

speak literary English. He never availed an opportunity to learn English systematically. At best he could teach the German language, deal with German literature in spoken English only. Nothing more. Our attention is not diverted from the fact that so far Georgina Max Müller reproduced letters of Max Müller in her translation only. This indicates that Max Müller writes in German only. This provided room for manipulations by Georgina Max Müller. His contract with the East India Company continued. By now Max Müller has two assignments in England. For none of these two he actually

possessed the required qualifications. We are genuinely puzzled. What was happening? Max Müller overcomes his mental agony and gets to work happily on both fronts. To give courses in place of Francis Henry Trithen takes a lot of time. A day has 24 hours only. At least, half of his work capacity he must invest to get prepared to face students. Seemingly he manages. But how can he continue his work “printing his Veda” without complaints by Horace Hayman Wilson? We do not find any references in this respect. Horace Hayman Wilson is completely out of focus for quite some time.

Then, out of the blue sky, we are informed that on December 4, 1851 Max Müller is made honorary M.A., and a member of the Christ Church. Christ Church is a college at Oxford. As simple minded straightforward searchers we have come to know that honorary academic titles are awarded to personalities who already had earned that academic degree or excelled otherwise. The honorary degree is an extra honour for extraordinary accomplishments, attainments, performances. In case of Max Müller it is obvious that this honorary M.A. was to cover, to make forget the swindle with “Dr. Max Müller”.

Our memory is not short enough not to be reminded of that letter of Max Müller to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen dated October 8, 1848 “... With all my love of the past, and with a full belief in the future of Germany, I feel more drawn at present to English than to German soil. My work will keep me in England for the next few years ; and as Oxford is a very pleasant place of residence, I have an idea of entering one of the Colleges as an undergraduate, keeping my twelve terms, and then taking my degree. I should hope to defray the expense by my own work, and the competition in the Oriental market is so small, that my prospects later on would probably not be bad.”

CHAPTER 17

MOMENTS OF TRUTH BEGIN TO CONTINUE Whatever may fall out of the blue sky, academic degrees or honorary degrees are not included in such fall-outs. This is what we all know. All people with average knowledge of that time knew this also. Yet, we are confronted by Georgina Max Müller with the information (p. 128), again in her translation and once again she did not mention a date: “On December 4 Max Müller was made honorary M.A., and a member

of Christ Church. He writes at once to tell his friend Dr. Pauli, and through him the Bunsens : Translation.December, 1851. 'To-day I have been made member of a college, no less than Christ Church, where the Common Room is now the most agreeable. The old Dean performed the ceremony in the pleasantest way, and feels free from all scruples, because he has found a precedent in Graevius who was made a member of Christ Church some hundreds of years ago. Without that he would hardly have given his consent !

Happy old England !’” If we trust Georgina Max Müller, Max Müller wanted Dr. phil. Reinhold Pauli believe that his being “made member of a college, no less than Christ Church”, was an event of historical significance. “The old Dean” could only give “his consent” after finding out that already one significant German personality, “Graevius who was made a member of Christ Church some hundreds of years ago.” We do remember that in December 1851 Max Müller was 28 years old. Up to date none of his accomplishments, attainments or performances could have brought him near to a honorary degree or

a membership “of a college, no less than Christ Church ...(in which) Graevius who was made a member of Christ Church some hundreds of years ago.” We would definitely like to know how it came to this event, who initiated it, who moved it and so on. We shall have to hunt after documents. Well, we skip the part Johann Georg Graevius (1632 –1703). But we cannot skip the first sentence. Max Müller did not mention that he “was made honorary M.A.” So, we ask, how could Georgina Max Müller come to know in 1902 that when Max Müller was “made member of a college, no less than Christ Church”, on the same day, on

December 4, 1851, Max Müller was also made honorary M.A.? How could she know? Did it really happen? Where is that document? We shall have to look out for a document in the archive of Christ Church in this regard. It is indeed remarkable that he does not hurry to write to his mother that some miracle, some fall-out of the blue sky had arrived to him. Thanks to the grace of his God. He was made honorary M.A. and a member of Christ Church; and that this event was a historical one. He was the second German personality, after hundreds of years, receiving this honour. The fact is that, he did not inform his mother al all. Why did he not inform his

mother? What does it mean? What should we conclude? We are absolutely unable to buy the last part of the introduction presented by Georgina Max Müller: “He writes at once to tell his friend Dr. Pauli, and through him the Bunsens:” Did she want us implicitly to accept that the Christ Church made Max Müller honorary M.A. based on his merit? And Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, his Patron, was to be informed through Dr. phil. Reinhold Pauli that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen should revise his eventual estimate in regard to Max Müller’s merits?

We apologise taking an aside for a remark. Max Müller will publish later, after Christian Charles Josias Bunsen had expired, a lot of his selected letters to him in his translation; much later. There is no lette r of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen congratulating Max Müller on this event of historical importance in any archive. We all know, and all people around Max Müller in those days knew as well, that whatever happened between June 1846 and December 1851 to him, it was not based on his merits. What did he accomplish up to December 1851? Absolutely nothing. He produced nothing but hot air. Nothing happened that was

not staged by Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in collaboration with the East India Company. All these aspects demand from us further search after documents. As simpleminded searchers we know, an event like this could not have taken place in the way narrated by Georgina Max Müller. We do not, however, exclude the possibility that this letter, translated by Georgina Max Müller, is a fake. We shall have to check. ***** We review the hard facts. When Max Müller arrived in England in June 1846 he was a mere nobody. And he was

burdened by an additional handicap of assuming a fraudulent academic title, assuming that he was Dr. Max Müller, a Sanskrit scholar from Germany. We know, he never tried to earn an academic degree. He could not have learnt the Sanskrit language. There was none in Europe who could teach him the Sanskrit language. The reason is simple. There was absolutely nobody in Europe who had learnt the Sanskrit language. As Dr. Max Müller, as a Sanskrit scholar from Germany, he got entry to the library of the East India Company in London. After a few days’ stay in London he was, not only financially, totally stranded. As an eventual last

resort he went to the Prussian Embassy for help. There, fortunately, he met the eminently powerful Ambassador of Prussia, Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. We know the whole story. We know also that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was also “a nobody” before he fortunately came across that rich “American” William Backhouse Astor at Göttingen University. He might have maintained a soft corner in his heart for ambitious persons of poor origin. Being a person moving things, he was also interested increasing the size of his loyal folk in his Diaspora in England. He gave Max Müller a try. He recruited him, kept him economically at

a low level. He guided him, observed him and examined his character for a few months. Is Max Müller fit for his missionary activities? We remember the strong Christian missionary zeal and the missionary activities of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, his wealthy Irish wife, his closeness to the British Kingdom and to British churches. He knew all about the most profitable wing of the British Kingdom, all about of the East India Company. We know also that he entertained an open house in London for political gatherings at the highest level policy makers of the East India Company included. Thomas Babington

Macaulay, we know him as well, after he returned to England in 1838 from British India, was often his guest. To know all about Thomas Babington Macaulay we refer to our Chapter 11, Chapter 14 and the book LIES WITH LONG LEGS. We apologise for recalling a few facets of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s vita in our present context. He won a seat in the House of Commons when he was 30 years old. As an eloquent orator in the House of Commons he was recruited as Secretary to the “Board of Control” of the East India Company. The demarcation lines between the British Crown, the House of Commons and the

East India Company were extremely thin. In the House of Commons Thomas Babington Macaulay got through a lucrative and the powerful position of a legal adviser to the “Supreme Council of India” in 1834 for himself and he could thus increase his income from £ 1500 to £ 10000, highest then in that establishment. There was no pressure for him to look out for extra income like others in Kolkata. He concentrated solely on his policy making missions. In Kolkata he implemented an education programme for “colonized India” in 1835. This was a thorough programme for cultural cloning:

“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, ... .” This was the way how “The Era of Vasco da Gama” was solidly established and then cemented in all occupied foreign lands by European Christians that is continuing in our days as well. After his return in 1838 Thomas

Babington Macaulay won again a seat in the House of Commons and continued as a policy maker of the East India Company. He served the British Kingdom also as “Secretary at War (1839 – 1841) and “Paymaster-General (1846 – 1848). We don’t count peanuts or count fly legs. It is not relevant whether or how often Christian Charles Josias Bunsen had talked to him about Max Müller as a “trainee” for future missions. We refer only to the fact that nothing happened on the educational front relating to occupied foreign lands of the British Kingdom without Thomas Babington Macaulay’s knowledge and vigilance. He was the

mastermind of educational policy not only in occupied foreign lands. We recall also that Thomas Babington Macaulay had decided to learn German before he left British India in 1838. He learned German to keep an overview on the doings of the overzealous German “indologists”. He did learn German systematically. He did not do it in the way how European Christian scholars claimed to have learnt the Sanskrit language. Prior to that, he probably did not know that the German “Franz Bopps” were no better than the British “Charles Wilkins”. We remember Thomas Babington Macaulay’s 30 years plan of cultural

cloning of a section of the people of British India as well: “It is my firm belief that, if our plan of education is followed up, there will not be a single idolater among respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence.” He was satisfied with the developments of his 30-years plan. But he was imaginative enough to assume that no brain-washing is everlasting. He knew as well that “his new class” would never become real Britons. Their physical features and their skin colour will never vanish. His new class will remain second class, even when they excelled intellectually over the Britons. Is there a way to hinder his new class ever searching for and finding their roots?

He reviewed the experiences made by European Christians during the occupation of foreign lands. He came across the doings of Roberto de Nobili, Warren Hastings, Charles Wilkins, William Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson, to cope with the ancient literature of Bharatavarsa in their ways. If it was not possible to destroy the pre-Christian culture and literature in British-India, as it was practiced by Christians and Muslims in many other occupied foreign territories, why not re-define the culture and re-write the literature in the English language? What else are translations even if these were done more scholarly?

Thomas Babington Macaulay was in search of a technique and of a route that he himself could implement. He reviewed the whole lot of translating “sanskritists”, British or Non-British, claiming to know the Sanskrit language without ever learning the language. So, why not re-write the whole lot in English and claim that these are “translated from the original”. Those “scholars” were doing it and getting it through as effortlessly as anything. Why should not this technique and this route be tried out more systematically? Ever since, Thomas Babington Macaulay was looking out for “scholars” who would be ready to

accomplish this dirty job of deliberate tampering with literature for money and career. We apologise calling “rewriting” a dirty job of deliberate tampering with literature for money and career. Faking, forging, imitating, rigging, tampering are the ways in the mainstream of the wonder that is this prevalent civilisation. We do concede that the demarcation line between translating and re-writing is thin. We shall deal with the basic malice of “translations” in a later chapter. Here we get back to Thomas Babington Macaulay and to his 30 years plan of sustained cloning. Ever since the “movers and shakers”

like Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and Thomas Babington Macaulay constantly look out identifying persons who would do everything in exchange for payments and rewards. This is the way how things are moved and shaken. But it should not be accomplished too obviously. Clandestine handling is called for. Arriving at this conviction it was a tiny step for him to a plan of “translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works” in the Christian way. How to build up an adequate set up for this mission? After his return from British-India in 1838 he was more powerful than ever. Money did not play a role. How many “orientalists” would be needed? How to

approach them? Would they accept the proposal? What type of “orientalists” was called for? Already reputed as scholars or persons with missionary zeal? He kept all options open and looked out. The systematic re-writing of the ancient Sanskrit literature into English was to be executed in such a way as to convince his “new class” that the New Testament was, for all practical purposes, superior to the Vedas and Upanishads. A thicket and a deep jungle of such “translations” were to be set up around “his new class”. That would be cheaper than all propaganda machineries. We apologise to look a little ahead and

ascertain that in the execution of his mission Thomas Babington Macaulay showed much less scruples than Roberto de Nobili, Warren Hastings, Charles Wilkins, William Jones, Henry Thomas Colebrooke, Horace Hayman Wilson, Franz Bopp, etc. and etc.. He preferred not to expose these Sanskritignorant-scholars as such. He applied the wisdom in the proverb: “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is the king” in his way. “In the world of the Sanskrit-ignorant-scholars, the man who gets printed the most becomes the king of scholars.” The moments of “educated prostitutes” had arrived, who willingly tendered their “body and soul” unconditionally, to getting material

returns. ***** Thomas Babington Macaulay did not object when Max Müller was taken in the “safe haven” of the East India Company for eight long years on recommendation of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen for a Job that was not a job at all. The observations and the character-screening of Max Müller as a trainee for eventual missions form June 1846 to April 1847 was done by Charles Josias Bunsen. This was accepted by Thomas Babington Macaulay. What Max Müller was to deliver, that was available in the East

India Company, as we know. Max Müller never complained about the senselessness of his assignment. This was the beginning that turned out to be a remarkable career of Max Müller. Max Müller proved to be religious, obedient, loyal and diligent. He was a talker too. His rather primitive belief, God mends everything, could easily be channelized for “missions” if he was accordingly “rewarded”. He could also be blackmailed anytime reminding him of his swindle of being “Dr. Max Müller”. In short, it was worth giving Max Müller a try to build him up as a “scholar” to put restraints on “scholars” like Hans Heinrich Eduard Roeer who

were willing to look beyond the limits of that dictionary by Horace Hayman Wilson. We are far from being on the track differentiating scholars and scholars. Even if we wanted to differentiate, we are not in a position to do so. We have yet to find a scholar in the world who is not kissed by charlatanry, swindles and hypocrisy. We are all the time on the path to expose myths, lies and factitiousness establishing truth in “the wonder that is” this culture in the Era of Vasco da Gama. On our search for scholars we find “intellectual prostitutes” only. Even a Professor of Philosophy like

Hans Heinrich Eduard Roeer sold his services to the East India Company at a higher price. We recall, in 1847 he was asked by the Asiatic Society to prepare a “publication of the Sanhita of the Rig Veda with its commentary and a translation of the Text. The MSS. for the edition had been collected from the Libraries of Calcutta and the Colleges of Benares.” But “a letter from Professor Wilson announced to the Society, that the printing of the Rig Veda Sanhita had been commenced upon at Oxford” in 1847. Thus even the chance was abandoned to do the job on spot by persons knowing the Sanskrit language.

We wonder that “Professor Wilson” did not ask Hans Heinrich Eduard Roeer to send his whole material base to London? Why did he not do it? These were the background for our conclusion that the printing part of the contract with Max Müller for eight years was a cover only. He was to be trained and dressed as a special missionary. Between April 1847 and October 1849 Max Müller was kept under the strict vigilance of Horace Hayman Wilson on that stupid non-job. Therefore it did not matter that Dr. Max Müller delivered that first volume six months later than it was scheduled. It is irrelevant to probe into any further

details. We recall only the contradictory hard facts: Ø that Max Müller failed to deliver yearly 50 sheets as per contract; Ø that after six months delay he fled from his English cage to Germany; Ø ¾ that he was permitted to flee; Ø that in spite of his utmost endeavours to get a job in Germany equivalent to his £ 200 per annum, failed miserably; Ø that he had to get back to his English cage to resume his job; Ø that there was no disapproval of

his unauthorised absence; Ø that he was caught in that cage more firmly thereafter than ever. We remember, Max Müller did not complain, did not grumble, he only humbly appealed to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen to implement a change in his miserable predicament. He could not know that his patrons had already planned to provide him additional training for eventual missions at a higher level. We remember, Max Müller resumed duty at Oxford in April 1850. But in the months thereafter he became desperate. On December 13, 1850 he wrote to his

mentor and patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen: “...If Lassen makes difficulties I must decide to stay in England, till a kindly fate leads me out of the Oxford hermit's cell, into free German air, or into a forest solitude in India.” Only a day later, on December 14, 1850 he could write to his mother: “I got an unexpected birthday gift. ... I received a letter from the university enquiring whether I would take over two ... courses ... at £ 50 for each course. I cannot say that I was very eager to accept the offer as it would interrupt my other works – but friends in Oxford as well as Bunsen

persuaded me and I have accepted and now utterly busy in drafting to fulfil the assignment. ... If they would then like to make me a professor, I won’t object, though I shall prefer a professorship in Germany. Now we want to see how the cat jumps, as I am determined to become a professor in a year.” From then on he starts selling himself as a Deputy Professor at Oxford. Those “friends in Oxford as well as Bunsen” knew that his claim was a swindle. We don’t wonder about Max Müller knowing all about his vita. We wonder about Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and Thomas Babington Macaulay.

These two masterminds behind the scene were permissive seeing that the swindle went through. They saw that Max Müller was on the path that celebrated “educated prostitutes” generally treaded. They could not have known exactly his real mental disposition and latent attitude expressed in that sentence to his mother: “If they would then like to make me a professor, I won’t object, though I shall prefer a professorship in Germany. Now we want to see how the cat jumps, as I am determined to become a professor in a year.” Whatsoever, we look out. On January 27, 1851, i.e. six weeks later, Max Müller can write to his

mother (highlighted by us): “...In a fortnight my lectures begin. I have only undertaken them for six months, but Bunsen persuades me strongly to remain, and I am thinking it over carefully. If I undertake it entirely I should have £400 a year for giving twenty-four lectures, and more than half the year vacation. I could go on with the Veda, and should have an income of about £600, with which one can live well in Oxford, and then you could come and pay me a visit for as long as you liked. But do not talk about it—it is all still uncertain ...” This calculation of Max Müller indicates the “generosity” of the East

India Company to pay him on annum basis, and not per delivered “sheets”. He manages with his new assignment. There are enough printed matters on the subject. One can copy on paper and read out. We close this episode quoting one last sentence from the above letter. “At all events, my prospects are not bad, and God will help me further.” Max Müller naturally invested most of his energy and time in his new assignment, his “Veda” gets slower and slower, yet he gets his pay from the East India Company and Horace Hyman Wilson keeps mum. Isn’t it remarkable? On June 1, 1851 he writes to his mother:

“... If the Professorship were definitely offered me, I would take it for five years. It is a pleasant position, and independent, and affairs in Germany are such, that I don't desire any Government appointment. But I shall carry on the lectures provisionally, as they hinder me so much from my other work, and I can earn much more money by the Veda.” Something was on cooking. We wait and see. In his last letter of the year to his mother Max Müller writes on November 16, 1951 (highlighted by us): “... I am not worrying my head with plans for the future, but let it go as it best may go. I have not at all made up

my mind to spend the rest of my life in Oxford, though I quite see it would be a folly to turn away from the prospects opening for me here. But one misses a good deal here that one has in Germany, especially pleasant intercourse with learned men : for there is little talk here of literary work. ... But these plans are all vague —and who knows what may happen first? ... We stand every moment in God's hands, and He knows best what is for our real welfare. Trust in God is the only happiness on earth ...” ***** We approached the Taylor institution for

documents, to begin with the beginning of Max Müller’s “unexpected birthday gift”. In our first run we come to know (highlighted by us): “Most of the Taylorian’s archives were moved from this building to the central University Archives in the 1970s and I have sent an email to them to check on whether there is any documentation concerning FMM’s appointment. I suspect there is nothing – the Curators’ Minutes, which I have seen, indicate that the first Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages and Literature was ill over a long period and that FMM had given various lectures in

his place and been paid on an ad hoc basis. … Do you have a reference that mentions such documents? I will await the reply from the University Archives.” Here is the response from the University Archives (highlighted by us): “… have checked the minutes of Curators' meetings for 1845-68 (our reference TL 2/1/1) in case there was mention of supporting documents submitted for Max Muller's appointment but there are none. As you would expect there is reference to his appointment in 1851 to give a course of lectures in Professor Trithen's absence due to illness and

a statement of his appointment as Professor of Modern Languages in February 1854 but no mention of references. As you have seen from your copy of the catalogue of the Taylorian Institute records, there appear to be no other records which might contain the information the enquirer is looking for.” By our continuous digging we come to know the following, but we do not get any supporting documents for the following facts: Ø “Dec.5 1848 – Trithen (Phil.doct Berlin Univ) nominated as

professor. His appointment approved by Congregation .on 15 Jan 1849. Ø Nov.30 1850 – Trithen given 1 year’s leave of absence “on account of severe illness.” Mr (Prof) Vaughan to ask Dr Max Muller to give the course of lectures in next Lent Term and another in Easter and ? terms in place of Trithen Payment of £50 for each course – out of the payment due to Trithen. Ø June 19 1851 – another year’s absence allowed to Trithen. FMM to give 3 courses of lectures in the year and to get £200p.a. –

taken from Trithen’s salary. Ø June 20 1852 FMM to be made deputy prof vice Trithen to Michaelmas 1852. Ø Oct.26 1853 – new professor to be advertised for. Ø Feb.8 1854 FMM elected prof.” The Michaelmas term begins in September/October. So Max Müller could be made a “deputy prof vice Trithen” in the Taylor Institution at Oxford from September 1852. By October 1853 it seemed to be evident that Francis Henry Trithen won’t ever be able to resume his duty. He died in

Odessa (Russia) in April 1854. We were compelled to make several runs to the archives at Oxford and at London. Thereby we came across the bizarre academic culture of Oxford University with its Colleges. We shall deal with this culture later in due course. Here this much. The archives are manipulative in their archiving. The educational institutions do not keep proper records. The mind of demigods of Oxford University is absolutely free from important periods of history from the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Oxford University do produce in the main academic doers, justifiers and prostitutes maintaining the Era of Vasco

da Gama. Repeatedly we were fed with reference books compiled and published by Oxford “scholars”. It was extremely difficult to put through to the archivists that the focus of our search was to get copies of primary documents only. Reference books are valueless if they were not based on primary documents. We did not get those primary documents in regard to the making of Max Müller a scholar or we were denied of those primary documents. Whatever might have been the case! That we got the letters of Max Müller to his mother, Adelheid Müller, from Oxford University we consider this to be a mere

operational glitch. We remember that Friedrich Maximilian Müller did insist that his mother destroys his letters after reading. He did burn all her letters as we know. We look back a little how Max Müller was trained and dressed for special missions in disguise of a scholar. In the beginning he was kept at the survival level in London for months in the close vicinity of the riches of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. He was permitted to continue with his fraudulent claim of having acquired a DoctorDegree. After months he was recruited at the lowest rank by the East India Company for eight years to accomplish a

non-job. Though, under the vigilance of a watch-dog, he fails to deliver the goods in time. But the regular payment continued. After the first volume was published, nobody talks about the volume. But Max Müller got an increase of his income of 100 % for an additional job for that he never acquired any qualifications. No one can explain how he got that job. In institutions, where they are proud of keeping records meticulously in libraries and archives, there are no records, at least, not available for us. He claimed to be a “deputy professor at Oxford” after getting that part-time job and his friends and the academic

community of Oxford just let it be. No wonder that they did not bother earlier also about his fraudulent claim of being “Dr. Max Müller”. Within 12 months thereafter he is “made honorary M.A. and member of Christ Church”. What do all these mean? We all know that the early European cites of advanced learning were based in Christian Churches. At that time religious and ruling powers were intermingled, quite exchangeable. Then Greek philosophy and literature were brought into Europe by the Arabs. Early European “universities” emerged thereafter only. Those “universities” were mainly engaged with the Christian

Religion, with justifications of prevalent power (Laws), with Greek, Latin and vernacular Languages and a little bit of “philosophy”. Nothing more, nothing less. These were post-high school teachingand-training institutions. In course of time all these “universities” were just upgraded by “upgrading” the labels of the subjects they taught, by just renaming the subjects in Greek or/and in Latin. Teaching and training religion became Theology. Teaching valid rights of the rulers and their justifications became Jurisprudence. Teaching languages became Philology. Nothing was discovered. Nothing was re-

searched. ***** We continue our search. We are served more or less friendly by the archivists. We sum up that information and quote the archivists, at times also in parts. From Anna Petre, Oxford University Archives, Bodleian Library, we come to know that Francis Henry Trithen was registered in “Joseph Foster's 'Alumni Oxonienses', a printed register of those who matriculated (i.e. were admitted to the University) between 1715 and 1886.” Francis Henry Trithen was matriculated from University College on 20th December 1848, aged 28. He was created M.A. on February 22, 1849 and

became the first Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages 1848-54. “We hold no further information on Trithen in the University Archives.” Joseph Foster's ‘Oxford Men and their Colleges’ mentions that Max Müller was “created MA from Christ Church on December 4, 1851 and MA by decree on December 13, 1855”. According to the 'Dictionary of National Biography' “Max Muller was “made” an honorary MA of the University and a member of Christ Church in 1851 through the sponsorship of his friend and patron Dean Gaisford.”

Anna Petre descends from a “Roman Catholic noble family” which can look back to 1633. The colleges in Oxford maintain their own archives. She advised us to contact the archivist, Robin Darwall-Smith, of the University College. We have followed her advice and come to know (highlightes by us): “I have been unable to confirm whether Max Muller held an honorary MA when he became a member of Christ Church, Max Muller would not have belonged to a department within the college.”, wrote Anna Petre. She advised us also to contact Christ Church directly, as Christ Church could hold additional

information, the archivist there, Judith Curthoys. There, the entry on Max Müller is detailed, so it was said. We could also contact the National Register of Archives where we were to find a list of all the repositories which hold records relating to Max Muller. Christ Church at Oxford was a cathedral-church and a college also building wise in the same compound. Oxford is the name of a rather small locality like Cambridge. Small townships like these two, Oxford and Cambridge, became synonymous as “seats” of teaching and training establishments for closely selected

persons, to generate top executives to serve the ruling power. This general truth is validated in our findings as well. Whatever we find in our search, these were to serve the ruling power in Britain, the British Kingdom. The teachers and trainees legitimized Briton’s piracy, Briton’s occupation of foreign lands, the sustained establishment of the Era of Vasco da Gama, sustained exploitation and sustained oppression of foreign lands. This is continued to our days. Do these institutions earn the name of a university? We think, we should vigorously raise this question. We know that most Prime ministers of the British

Kingdom were trained in Oxford or in Cambridge to serve the King or the Queen. We are too far away presently to be able to know exactly how the monarchies in general and the British Monarchy in particular emerged and how their paramount position in the society were legitimised. How and by what means Rulers become Rulers is yet to be re-searched by the “scholars” produced in the “Elite Universities” like Oxford. And we raise also the question how these rulers came to their fortune and to their palaces. Did they work for accumulating their wealth? Or ...? We know, Max Müller had swindled with his claim of becoming a Doctor

Max Müller in 1844 and a “Deputy Professor of Oxford” in the beginning of 1851. He was only asked by the Taylor Institution to undertake courses in modern languages, though he had not studied “modern languages”, to overcome a crisis caused by the illness of Francis Henry Trithen, who was duly elected for that job. We recall the reference: “Nov. 30 1850 – Trithen given 1 year’s leave of absence “on account of severe illness.” Mr (Prof) Vaughan to ask Dr Max Muller to give the course of lectures in next Lent Term and another in Easter and ? terms in place of Trithen Payment of £50 for

each course – out of the payment due to Trithen.” We do not know whether “Mr (Prof) Vaughan” or Taylor Institution knew anything about one Dr. Max Müller or “Dr. Max Muller’s” first volume of RigVeda that came out in October 1849. We shall continue our run to archives to know more. As mentioned, the Christ Church College belongs to the Christ Church. We started a run to Christ Church also to be able to comprehend why and how Max Müller was “made honorary M.A.”, where, on what basis and on whose move. Though we stubbornly did the maximum digging we could not find out definitely

where, why and how Max Müller was “made honorary M.A.”, and on what basis and on whose move. Only this much we come to know (highlighted by us): “I regret that I have no further information about Max Muller in the Christ Church archive. His MA was more of an internal honorary degree, and is not recorded in the Governing Body minutes. He would have been a member of Common Room and been entitled to dine, but the details that we have are derived from the Dictionary of National Biography which Anna (Mrs. Anna Petre, Oxford University Archives, Bodleian

Library) has already mentioned. I am sorry that I am unable to help more.Yours sincerely, Judith Curthoys”. On our pointer that the authors of ‘Dictionary of National Biography’ must have based their writings on primary documents, and that we would like to get copies of those documents, Mrs. Judith Curthoys wrote (highlighted by us): “…I am afraid that there were no Chapter meetings on either 4 December 1851 or 13 December 1851, so I am unable to send you copies. I have checked all the records that are indexed and likely to include references to Max Muller

but have found nothing at all. I do apologise that I am unable to help further.” So we are left behind with the puzzle, how the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography could include Max Müller, if we trust the archivist: “… there were no Chapter meetings on either 4 December 1851 or 13 December 1851, so I am unable to send you copies. I have checked all the records that are indexed and likely to include references to Max Muller but have found nothing at all.” Where does the information come from to the Dictionary of National

Biography that “Max Muller was made an honorary MA of the University and a member of Christ Church in 1851 through the sponsorship of his friend and patron Dean Gaisford”? We only hope that the editor Dr. Mark Curthoys of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the archivist at and writer on Christ Church's history Judith Curthoys are not only a professional couple engaged in the preservation of the image of Oxford at any cost. We have not forgotten what Joseph Foster's Oxford Men and their Colleges has handed-down. Max Muller “was created MA from Christ Church on 4 December 1851 and MA by decree

on 13 December 1855.” We are searching in “Oxford” sources. And what do we learn? Is Oxford really a renowned place of learning and of research? That is hardly probable. Is Oxford in reality a renowned place for brainwashing, cloning and manipulation? That is more likely. We shall deal with Oxford as an exemplary university in the wonder that is this European Christian culture in a while. We stick to these two incidents and dig further. We wanted to know definitely the validity of the sentence written by Judith Curthoys. Do we understand rightly, we enquired, that you have looked into the minutes of the

Governing Body and ascertained that there is neither a reference of Max Muller's creation of MA on 4 December 1851, nor on his ‘MA by decree on 13 December 1855? We requested her further to indicate precisely how she could conclude that Max Muller's "MA was more of an internal honorary degree". And, what does this exactly mean, where is it recorded. We requested her to search in the archive whether there are original documents (letters, notes, etc.) on Max Müller, also in some other context. We asked also to send copies of the original minutes of the meeting of the Governing Body of December 4, 1851 and of December 13, 1855, of course at our

cost. And the decisive reply of Judith Curthoys was (highlighted by us): “... I am afraid that there were no Chapter meetings on either 4 December 1851 or 13 December 1851, so I am unable to send you copies. I have checked all the records that are indexed and likely to include references to Max Muller but have found nothing at all. I do apologise that I am unable to help further.” We don’t mind her slipping mistake: “13 December 1851”. But we do mind her deliberate lie. How could the different versions be prepared in British

reference books by Oxford “scholars”, a century later, without records, including the version given by her husband or brother - we do not know exactly how these two persons are related to each other? ***** The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that Max Müller was made honorary M.A. of the University and a member of Christ Church in 1851 through the sponsorship of his friend and patron Dean Gaisford. One of the three “Research Editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography”, Dr. Mark C Curthoys, is “responsible for the Nineteenth and Twentieth

Centuries”. On which documents is this his chronicle based: “Max Müller was made honorary M.A. of the University”? Or that Max Müller “was made a member of Christ Church in 1851 through the sponsorship of his friend and patron Dean Gaisford”? Where are these documents? We remember Anna Petre, Oxford University Archives, Bodleian Library: “I have been unable to confirm whether Max Muller held an honorary MA. When he became a member of Christ Church, Max Muller would not have belonged to a department within the college as the colleges are not structured in that

way.” Dean Gaisford did really exist. He was Thomas Gaisford (1779 – 1855), a student and tutor of Christ Church, Regius Professor of Greek at the University, from 1831 until his death Dean of Christ Church. In 1848, when Max Müller shifted to Oxford to work with the Oxford University Press, he was 69 years old. He had duties in the Cathedral Christ Church being in the order, duties as Regius Professor of Greek at the University, also duties as Dean, Christ Church. We are just not able to relate him as Max Müller’s “friend and patron”. Moreover, why should Thomas Gaisford “sponsor”

Max Müller, a nobody, performing his duty as sub-editor of the Oxford University Press, to make him a member of Christ Church? We apologise to be too simple-minded to be taken for a ride by tellers of fairy tales. As mentioned we were also referred to Dr. Robin Darwall-Smith, FSA, FRHistS, Archivist, Magdalen College and University College. His first reply was: “The archives of University College have no records of any kind whatsoever about F. Max Muller.”And: “The archives of University College have Trithen's entry in our Admissions Register, and some evidence for his paying College bills, but they contain

nothing else of any kind.” We did request him to give a second thought to our query. He did. He is the other extreme of Judith Curthoys. We asked for primary documents. He gave us his personal opinions quite elaborately. Had we put our standard question, how he knew all those things he was telling about, he would have stopped the correspondence immediately. So we took his time and he took our time. We know now for certain that the archives at Oxford are politically partial or at a miserable state of affairs. When we review the practices in Oxford University and Oxford Colleges, we

come to the conclusion that these are no better than the “machinations” practiced by Max Müller and by Georgina Max Müller. Also Dr. Robin Darwall-Smith, FSA, FRHistS, Archivist, Magdalen College and University College did not resolve the contradiction: If there are reference books, there should also be primary documents available in the archives. If there are no documents in the archives, the reference books are instruments for manipulations only. We are in the chapter: Moments of truth begin to continue. We apologise taking a little aside. All these archivists belong to the strata of Oxford combatants to preserve and

nurture Oxford’s image. We mean combatants. Dr. Mark C Curthoys and Judith Curthoys show the same address. A last note to Judith Curthoys. We came across an interesting remark (highlighted by us): “As college archivist, Curthoys displays an unrivalled familiarity with the records, but sometimes seems reluctant to interrogate her sources too deeply or tarnish the reputation of her subject. There is no counterbalance to Canon Stratford’s character assassination of Dean Atterbury (1711-13) or any attempt to investigate from which ‘well-known bank’ John Bull (treasurer 1832-

1857) withdrew the college’s money when he saved it from ruin. Nor does she question whether it was merely coincidence that Henry Chadwick resigned the deanery the year before women were admitted in 1980. Curthoys's sound intention to avoid writing a ‘mini-Dictionary of National Biography’ has resulted in regrettably brief references to some of the college’s best-known figures. Trevor-Roper, for instance, is described as ‘researching the truth behind the death of Hitler’ with no mention of his later authentication of the forged Hitler Diaries.”

Hopefully Judith Curthoys has not played foul with us to cover eventual follies of Dr. Mark C Curthoys, one of those three “Research Editors of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography”. Dr. Mark C Curthoys is responsible for the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. ***** We know by now, we have to find in this thicket swindles parts of truth and put two and two together to understand what happened in the Taylor Institution and in the Christ Church in regard to Max Müller. In October 1849 the first volume of a publication was thrown in the market of books by the East India

Company, edited by Dr. Max Müller. The claim was, the first volume was the first part of the “only complete version of Rig Veda in Sanskrit letters”. The basis of this publication was the arbitrary collection of Sanskrit handwritten manuscripts kept in the libraries in Berlin, Paris, London and Oxford, as we have documented. These were partly robbed by ruffians, and later “bought” by “scholars” like the “Henry Thomas Colebrookes”. In 1849 there was none in Europe who could read and understand a text written in the Sanskrit language. We have documented; there was none. Nonetheless it was put in the annals that Dr. Max Müller was the first

one who published the first part of the complete Rig Veda in Sanskrit letters. And we know that Dr. Max Müller could not have learnt the Sanskrit language, even he wanted to learn. How did he perform this miracle? No one tells us how many copies of this volume were printed and how many copies were sold. We know only that this project was financed by the East India Company and Dr. Max Müller, a Sanskrit scholar from Germany, was sponsored by Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. That was enough. It is not relevant to discuss when it came to light that Max Müller was unable to produce the certificate proving his academic

degree. How should he be able to produce any certificate of an academic degree, if, as we know, he did not earn any? It is important to understand that those promoters of Max Müller were in a mess when they came to know about this swindle. Should their investment to dress him for future missions pay off, they must find a way to cover this swindle. A confession of a folly was no option. Why not try to smuggle Max Müller in the Oxford community by hook or by crook? His patrons knew how to pull strings. We remember, Max Müller escaped from his Oxford cage for almost six

months trying to find a job alternative in Germany. He had to return to his cage. He did not have an alternative than unconditional surrender. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen saw a chance of integrating Max Müller when he came to know that Francis Henry Trithen was unable to offer all his courses in modern languages due to his illness and needed relieve. So, why not smuggle Max Müller as provisional relief in the Taylor Institution at Oxford? He was a German. Being a German he could teach the German language. Only two hooks were to be removed. The Taylor Institution would have to operate a little out of its

own way. This would explain why there are no records in the archive of the Taylor Institution. Then, the East India Company will have to continue to keep Max Müller on its pay list. The second hook was removed by Thomas Babington Macaulay without toils. Max Müller thus did get a raise in income, but became more of a marionette of these two masterminds. Within a year it was organised that Max Müller’s fraudulent academic title was covered by giving him an academic title and a certificate by the Christ Church, all on honorary basis, of course. All sorts of versions made the rounds. Who should care? We know how it moved.

The wonder that was Oxford made the rest. We recall the process in quick motion. In September (Michaelmas term) 1852 Max Müller was made the “deputy prof vice Trithen”, a little out of the way thanks to Christ Church. Between that letter of Horace Hayman Wilson dated on February 26, 1850 and September 1852 we have not found a single document indicating enquiries on the progress of Max Müller’s initial assignment: the following volumes, two to four, of his “Rig-veda. We remember, Horace Hayman Wilson was far away from the level of policy making. In November 1852 Christian Charles Josias Bunsen arranged assistance for

Max Müller from Berlin; Dr. phil. Theodor Aufrecht (1821 – 1907), a student of Franz Bopp was to help Max Müller. Being a German Jew Theodor Aufrecht too had to leave Berlin like Theodor Goldstücker. In December 1952 Max Müller writes to his mother about Theodor Aufrecht (highlighted by us): “We work together, and he helps me at my Veda, for which I pay him enough to live here. We shall try the plan at first for six months, and I hope it will all go well. It is very pleasant for me to have someone with whom I can talk about literary things, and my time is so filled up that I am very glad to have someone to whom I can leave part of my work : but I must wait a

while to see how it works, and whether it brings me in as much as it costs.” In the beginning of 1853 it was evident that Francis Henry Trithen would not be able to resume his duty. The professorship is vacant, Max Müller represents Francis Henry Trithen as good as he could, demands now the full salary and wants also the professorship. The curators of the Taylor Institution decide that the “new professor to be advertised for”. Max Müller becomes extremely apprehensive, nervous and pessimistic. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen asks him to be prudent and to wait patiently. He also willingly declares that he will

organise the canvassing for Max Müller. It is, of course, not to be had for nothing. Max Müller has to write for his mentor too. He feels pressurized. In his letter dated July 3, 1853 to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, translated by Georgina Max Müller, we find an indication of over-pressure on him: “I work every day at the Bodleian from nine till four, at the catalogue of the Sanskrit MSS. ; then I am printing the preface to the second volume of the Veda which is ready.” We read what Georgina Max Müller wrote on this issue (p. 146) (highlighted by us):

“How he managed to get through all his work is a marvel, for besides his lectures, his Vedic work, the Turanian article for Bunsen, and a new work forced on him by his indefatigable friend, of which we shall hear presently, he was collecting testimonials for the Curators of the Taylor Institution, who had definitely fixed the election to the Professorship for the beginning of the January Term. Meantime they had been so satisfied with the result of the lectures, that, as he tells his mother, he is already receiving this quarter the full salary. The testimonials, the originals of which must ever be a precious treasure for

is children, are from Humboldt, Bunsen, Bopp, Lepsius, Canon Jacobson (later Bishop of Chester), W. Thomson (later Archbishop of York), Mr. Jowett, Professors Wilson and Donkin.” A copy of the advertisement to identify a suitable professor is not available in the Oxford archives. How many applications were there and who were the other applicants? Even the application of Max Müller is not available in the Oxford archives, nor any of the testimonials presented by him to the curators of Taylor Institution. We are apprehensive that Oxford archives might have intentionally destroyed those

documents or, even worse, we are denied of them. We are only intrigued that Georgina Max Müller came to know in 1902: “The testimonials, the originals of which must ever be a precious treasure for his children, are from Humboldt, Bunsen, Bopp, Lepsius, Canon Jacobson (later Bishop of Chester), W. Thomson (later Archbishop of York), Mr. Jowett, Professors Wilson and Donkin”? Apart from our standard questions we find it remarkable that Georgina Max Müller did not mention any academic certificates, nor testimonials from his academic teachers at Leipzig University. This was the only University where Max

Müller studied five semesters. There is no testimonial from Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling. We recall, Friedrich Max Müller went to Royal Frederick William University at Berlin specially to be taught by him. We also note that Horace Hayman Wilson is completely out of the picture whilst Max Müller is being built up for special missions. We are afraid that the Oxford writers of current Oxford reference books might never have viewed and reviewed the primary sources before they got busy marketing Max Müller on faked basis and thus cultivating Oxford’s image. On February 8, 1854 the Governing Board of Curators, Taylor Institution,

elected Max Müller to become the second “Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages” and this was “confirmed by Convocation on February 21” 1854. Thus Max Müller is settled in Oxford. His income has also increased by another 50 %, i.e. from £ 400 to £ 600. Now he can also throw parties. ***** We apologise to look back a little. Max Müller remained all along on the pay list of the East India Company. He required four years to complete his Second Volume. We remember, he was assisted by Dr. Theodor Aufrecht since November 1852. The “Preface” to the Second Volume has been dated

Christmas 1853. It is signed with the initials “M. M., Sir Robert Taylor’s Institution, Oxford, Christmas 1853” and no more “M. M., Oxford”. This is significant to note. There are also other remarkable changes in the presentation of the Second Volume. A comparison of the presentation of the two editions brings us nearer to the truth, to that what actually happened to establish Max Müller for future missions. We present the title page of the Second Volume:

This volume too is dedicated to the Chairman, Vice Chairman and to all other Directors, all by their names. Presently there are, in all, 23 of them.

For a more convenient comparison we reproduce the presentation of the First Volume also. The volume was PRINTED BY T. COMBE, PRINTER OF THE UNIVERSITY, OXFORD, in October 1849. It contains a PREFACE written by M. M., Oxford, October 1949.

The volume is dedicated individually to the 24 Directors of Board with their full names.

***** The First Volume was Edited by Dr. Max Müller. There is no mention of an institution, nor where he acquired his doctorate degree. It was published under the Patronage of “The Honourable The East India Company”. The credibility of scholarship came from the Editor Dr. Max Müller and not from the Patronage. The credibility of Dr. Max Müller was not yet challenged. But there was no guarantee for the future. The reasons must not be repeated here. In those four years, between October 1849 and Christmas 1853 remarkable things happened. Dr. Max Müller, the

Sanskrit scholar from Germany, was buried. He was resurrected as Max Müller M.A. via Taylor Institution at Oxford. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and Thomas Babington Macaulay were pulling the strings. Those two masterminds found an elegant way to get rid of the fraudulent “Dr.” of Max Müller. Christ Church College made him honorary M.A. There are no documents to explain how it could happen and on whose moves. Was he really “made honorary M.A.”? Nothing has been questioned so far. No questions, no answers. We raised questions. The answers we got from the archivist of Christ Church, Judith

Curthoys: “I regret that I have no further information about Max Muller in the Christ Church archive. His MA was more of an internal honorary degree, and is not recorded in the Governing Body minutes.” Later more precisely: “…I am afraid that there were no Chapter meetings on either 4 December 1851 or 13 December 1851, so I am unable to send you copies. I have checked all the records that are indexed and likely to include references to Max Muller but have found nothing at all. I do apologise that I am unable to

help further.” “13 December 1851” is a typing mistake. It is 13. December 1855. We didn’t get an explanation for, how Judith Curthoys could arrive to her conclusion that “His MA was more of an internal honorary degree“. What is it, “an internal honorary degree”? The same procedure how Max Müller was appointed as the “deputy prof vice Trithen” in the Taylor Institution? The Second Volume of the publication however tells us that it was edited by Max Müller, M. A., Christ Church Oxford. The credibility of scholarship comes now from the “Max Müller, M.

A., Christ Church Oxford” and not from “an Editor Dr. Max Müller”. There is another remarkable change. The First Volume was dedicated to the “Directors” with the words: “For managing the affairs of The Honourable The East-India-Company, THIS ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE EARLY INSTITUTIONS OF THE NATIVES OF INDIA ...”. This part in

capital letters is deleted and “The Second Volume of RIG-VEDA SANHITA” was added. Well. The First Volume was for learning. It does not escape our attention that not only Max Müller had been in the making of a scholar; the East India Company was also getting dressed as

preserver and as guardian of the ancient culture of Bharatavarsa for the “new class” of Thomas Babington Macaulay. ***** In June 1854 Christian Charles Josias Bunsen leaves England after resigning as Ambassador of Prussia to the Court of St James’s. The King of Prussia differed from his assessment of the Crimean War. Yes, Crimean War. The World War declared by the Pope on the nonChristian world was continuing all over the world in high and low tides. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen’s resignation was accepted by the King of Prussia. Thereafter he lived in

Heidelberg and in Bonn. One of the last papers signed by King Frederick William, “before his mind gave way”, was that Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was given the title of a Baron and a peerage for life in 1858. He died in November 1860 in Bonn. When Christian Charles Josias Bunsen left England Thomas Babington Macaulay is left alone with the implementation in the making of Max Müller as a special agent. All the time Thomas Babington Macaulay kept himself behind the scene while Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was directly guiding Max Müller. The Second Volume of Rig-Veda establishes

Max Müller as a scholar at Oxford. Thomas Babington Macaulay observes also that there has not been any adverse move against Max Müller in his new position as the second “Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages”. Now it is time for him to get a firsthand assessment of the character and ability of Max Müller as a special agent. In December 1854, he calls Max Müller at his residence. Max Müller is now 31 years old.

CHAPTER 18

MOMENT OF TRUTHS – HOUR OF DECISION 1854 is the most fateful year in the young life of Max Müller. He is now 31 years old. The Board of Curators has appointed him as the second “Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages”. It does not matter anymore, how it happened. Well, it is not a professorship in the prestigious Oxford University. The salary is also much less; per annum £ 400. But it is more than a professorship in Germany. Objectively considered, for the first time in his life he earns his salary for a real job,

teaching Modern European Languages. He has yet to learn teaching modern languages while he teaches. He can begin with the German language and literature. He is now free to be independent. He must not remain a foreign legionnaire of the East India Company. He can leave behind all his past follies and swindles and start an honest and straightforward life. For him it is a real windfall. We do not know enough about his mental disposition. We know only that he did go the other way. He did not take a break in his restless life. He was plagued with chronic headaches since the early childhood. Financially he had to depend, all the time, on the mercy of different

patrons. He had always to be on alert that his swindles were not exposed. He is too ambitious and too greedy. He continues to remain in the “safe haven” of the East India Company. He is deluded and seduced by £ 200 extra for a non-job adding to his £ 400 from the Taylor Institution. And he is lured by eventual future fame of a “scholar”. He is not that reflective person. We are rather apprehensive whether Max Müller can differentiate between “scholar” and real scholarship. On the sudden departure of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen from England to Germany he has written to his mother on May 12, 1854 (highlighted by us):

“Bunsen's resignation is a real loss to me. I saw him in London—the house is now empty. Yet one can only congratulate him on having saved his good name, at the right moment. His leaving gave me a great deal of work and disturbance. He is just bringing out a new book in seven volumes. I had various things to write for him, and as it had to be ready by the twentieth, I never got to bed before two. Now I have undertaken a work for Government, which is just printed. Then came the lectures, and the Veda above all, so that I really have not a moment to think of or do anything else, and can say nothing about my plans for summer.”

The moment the resignation of Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was accepted by the Prussian King, Thomas Babington Macaulay knew that now he alone will have to deal with Max Müller and decide the routes for him. Quite a lot was invested to make “Max Müller” a loyal combatant for special missions, not just spreading Christianity by converting people in non-European continents. The missions were to subjugate people in all walks of life wherever possible und the cover up the immoral activities with a show of Christian piety. Brainwashing and cloning of people were the major instruments after occupying the foreign lands.

Thomas Babington Macaulay takes his time before he asks Max Müller to meet him at his residence. It is noteworthy that he did not call him at his office. There is almost no information available on the subject-matters of this meeting. As said, almost no records. We find the following casual mention in a letter about this event. Max Müller writes on December 28, 1854 to his mother just two sentences in the midst of many trivial subjects: “I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India. He is very

clear-headed, eloquent.”

and

extraordinarily

How should his mother be able to estimate the significance of these two sentences? She neither knows about a “Macaulay”, nor anything about “the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India“? But when we read these two sentences, we felt, there was more information behind these two sentences in the midst of trivial subjects. The beginning indicates that Max Müller met Thomas Babington Macaulay rather casually: “I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay”. If the meeting was more

accidental, then the second part of the sentence: “and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India” does not make much sense and loses its importance. Therefore we include the second sentence in our evaluation of the first sentence: “He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” The second sentence is in an unusual diction. We know from his letter to his mother and remember that he always attributed pleasant qualities to persons he met in Berlin, in Paris and in London. They were voluble; as it is usual in societygossips. In every letter he lauded on

Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. But never in such words like: “He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” We assume, he had never met a person like Thomas Babington Macaulay before. He had never met a more eloquent person than Thomas Babington Macaulay. With this eloquence he must have explicated his 30 years plan to him and asked him to work for his missions. He did not give him a chance to talk. And we assume, there was no need for him to talk. He was almost drugged experiencing a personality like Thomas Babington Macaulay and to be recruited to fulfil his missions. It must

have been an impulsive urge for him to write to his mother immediately on that event, and he did not know what to write. The message of these two sentences is: I am now attached to a personality: “He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” He is not in a position to explicate to his mother what he was expected to do. He wrote just something like: “I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India.” This something did not make much sense to his mother, but he is relieved after writing the second sentence. We

apologise to look back a little and take liberty to look ahead also. We assume this meeting took place on December 28, 1854. Max Müller had never met him before. And he will not meet him again. These are hard facts. ***** Between December 28, 1854 and 1897 we didn’t find any other record on that event, on that private meeting at Thomas Babington Macaulay’s residence. What does it mean? Again we rummage through the documents. There is no record. We scrutinise Max Müller’s “My Autobiography” searching for a reference at least to Thomas Babington Macaulay. There is none.

We mentioned “Auld Lang Syne”, Max Müller’s memoir earlier too. He did it in two volumes. They were published in 1898 and in 1899. “Auld Lang Syne” has five sections: “Musical Recollections”, “Literary Recollections”, “Recollections of Royalties”, “Beggars” and “Index”. We wonder that he did not include a section called “Recollections of Scholars” in his “Auld Lang Syne”. None of his later biographers or curators of his memorial has missed a chapter “Recollections of Scholars”. Is it not remarkable? We are so often surprised encountering the wonder that is this European Christian culture. Well!

In the section “Index” of “Auld Lang Syne” we find Thomas Babington Macaulay four times: on pages 74, 85, 88 and 161 – 163. On pages 74, 85, 88 he mentioned the name Thomas Babington Macaulay only. On page 74 we read the beginning of the section: “Literary Recollections II”. It begins: “When I had settled in England in 1847, my literary acquaintance began afresh. I have had the good fortune of being on more or less intimate terms with such poets as Kingsley, Clough, Matthew, Arnold, Tennyson, Browning, and with poets in prose such as Froude, Ruskin, Carlyle, and I may add, in spite of the Atlantic,

Emerson, Lowell, and Oliver Wendell Holmes. I knew other writers such as Macaulay, Arthur Helps, Arthur Stanley, Frederick Maurice, Dr. Martineau ; I may add even the names of Faraday, Lyall, Sedgwick, Thirlwall, Grote, Whewell, Richard Owen, Darwin, Huxley, among my personal acquaintances or friends.” We have reproduced the whole first paragraph of the beginning “Literary Recollections II”. He claimed to know all celebrated personalities of that time. When he claimed, almost all of them had expired. We proceed to the second mention of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s on page 85. We take

however liberty to start on page 84, and again we refrain from comments: “I am the last man to stand up for an unscholarlike treatment of history, or of anything else. But as I do not call a man a scholar who simply copies and collates MSS., makes indices or collects errata, I doubt whether mere Quellenstudium will make a historian. Quellenstudium is a sine qua non, but it is not everything ; and whereas the number of those who can ransack archives and libraries is large, the world has not been rich in real historians whom it is delight to listen to, such as Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy and Tacitus, Montesquieu, Gibbon, and may we

not add, Macaulay and Froude? None of these historians, not even Gibbon, has escaped criticism, but how poor should we be without them !” On Page 88 we read the third mention of Thomas Babington Macaulay: “Can we imagine any history of our own times written from the pole star, and not from amid the turmoil of contending parties? Would a history of the reign of Queen Victoria, written by Gladstone, be very like a history written by Disraeli? However, these squabbles of reviewers about the histories of Macaulay and Froude are now almost entirely forgotten, while the historical dramas which

Macaulay and Froude have left us, remain, and Englishmen are proud of possessing two such splendid monuments of the most important periods of their history. Macaulay’s account of William III remained unfinished, ...” On the pages 161 – 163 we find the fourth mention of Thomas Babington Macaulay. It is packed in the section “Literary Recollections IV”. Here we find a report on that private meeting at Thomas Babington Macaulay’s residence in 1854. He began reporting on page 161 (highlighted by us): “Were I to write down my more or less casual meetings with men of

literary eminence, I should have much more to say, much that was of deep interest and value to myself, but would hardly be of interest to others. I felt greatly flattered, for instance, when years ago Macaulay invited me to see him at the Albany, and to discuss with him the new regulations for the Indian Civil Service. This must have been in about 1854.” (We apologise, we must take a break at this point.) What urged Max Müller to mention this episode at all? What exactly did he want his posterity to believe? We know the details of Max Müller’s career up to the end of 1854. He was equipped with

limited knowledge and endowed with primitive faith in his Christian God. At best he knew making “simply copies and collates MSS.” in Sanskrit characters. He knew nothing on “regulations for the Indian Civil Service”, the old or the new version. Why should Thomas Babington Macaulay, being at the zenith of his power and fame, have liked to discuss ‘the new regulations for the Indian Civil Service’ with a “nobody” like Max Müller? He neither understood anything about the “colonial” policy, nor had he acquired firsthand experiences by living in India. We know about the dynamics of Thomas

Babington Macaulay’s personality. He was an implementer through and through. He was like some huge juggernaut. We recall the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “Macaulay's reputation, immense during the last decade of his life, fell steadily in the 50 years that followed. His undisguised political partisanship, his arrogant assumption that English bourgeois standards of culture and progress were to be forever the norm for less favoured nations, and the materialism of his judgements of value and taste all came under heavy fire from such near-contemporary critics as Thomas Carlyle, Matthew Arnold, and John Ruskin.”

We remember also Chambers’s Biographical Dictionary: “Macaulay’s reputation is not what once it was – he has been convicted of historical inaccuracy, of sacrificing truth for the sake of epigram, of allowing personal dislike and Whig bias to distort his views of men and incidents”. We let it be whatever Max Müller wanted his posterity to believe. We do raise the issue whether his posterity is any better in quality and leave it for eventual discussions. Rather benevolently we ask, what could have been the purpose of a discussion, even with experienced persons, immediately

after Thomas Babington Macaulay had got the new “regulations for the Indian Civil Service” passed in the House of Commons? Exactly this was the case in December 1854. Thomas Babington Macaulay presided over the Committee on Indian Civil Service in March 1854. It is documented that he wrote the rough draft of the report on July 8, 1854. Next day he read this draft of the report to his brother-in-law Charles Edward Trevelyan, one of his biographers, too. The Chairman of the Committee on Indian Civil Service, Thomas Babington Macaulay, submitted the report officially on November 27, 1854. The report of the

Committee was printed on December 27, 1854 in The Times. These are the hard facts. Four obvious questions arise now: 1. How could the theme of that meeting between Thomas Babington Macaulay and Max Müller be “Indian Civil Service”? 2. And what prompted Max Müller at the age of 76 to boast: “Macaulay invited me to see him at the Albany, and to discuss with him the new regulations for the Indian Civil Service” when he was 31, an unknown foreigner in England?

3. We remember what he wrote to his mother in 1854 immediately after that meeting: “I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India. He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” Why Max Müller gave such a false report also to his mother in regard to that meeting with Thomas Babington Macaulay? 4. That meeting had taken place. The subject-matters could not have been what Max Müller wanted us

to believe. What had been then the subject-matters which were to be covered up by stories like these, served by Max Müller? Such questions have not yet been raised by “scholars” writing on Max Müller. This covering up has functioned for more than hundred and 15 years. Lies have, now and then, no doubt, long legs. We get back to our question again: What urged him to mention this episode? After this break we now continue to read Max Müller: “I was quite a young and unknown man at that time, but I had already made his acquaintance at Bunsen’s

house, where he had been asked to meet Herr von Radowitz, for a short time Prime Minister of Prussia, and the most famous talker in Germany. It was indeed a tournament to watch, but it was in English, which Radowitz spoke well, yet not well enough for such a contest, Macaulay carried the day.” (We apologise, we must take a break here too.) Without the last sentences the whole “story”, Max Müller’s being invited, would have been totally unbelievable. Yet, it is not easy to swindle so smoothly. We have scrutinised the career of Thomas Babington Macaulay. He was never a talker. He was an

implementer without scruples. He argued relentlessly, also based on false facts and with false claims. He wrote. He did not talk. He had no time to talk in his rather restless missionary career. Then, Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote letters to his sisters, often daily with dates, as substitutes for keeping personal diaries. These letters are closely-printed in small letters in six thick volumes. He mentioned therein every Tom, Dick and Harry, as also many Germans he met and when the meeting was significant for him. There is no mention of this ‘Prime Minister of Prussia' nor of Max Müller in these “six thick volumes”. The fact that there is no

mention of a Max Müller in those six thick volumes indicates that he had met Thomas Babington Macaulay only once. That was in December 1854. And even this meeting was not of significance for him. Well, these letters were published in 1876. How likely it is that someone would check the concocted cute and pretty stories of Max Müller in the 21st century against the letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay? Or against his letter dated December 28, 1854 to his mother, published by Georgina Max Müller in Life and letters (p. 162): “...I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, ...”?

On top of it, we must report, a “Herr von Radowitz, for a short time Prime Minister of Prussia” is not on records. Well, sometimes lies may have very long legs! We continue our reading Max Müller: “I went to call on Macaulay in London, ...Macaulay, after sitting down, asked me a number of questions, but before I had time to answer any of them, he began to relate his own experiences in India, dilating on the difference between a scholar and a man of business, giving a full account of his controversy, while in India, with men like Professor Wilson and others,

who maintained that English would never become the language of India, expressing his own strong conviction to the contrary, and relating a number of anecdotes, showing that the natives learnt English far more easily than the English could ever learn Hindustani or Sanskrit. Then he brunched off into some disparaging remarks about Sanskrit literature, ...and ending up with the usual diatribes about the untruthfulness of the natives of India, and their untrustworthiness as witnesses in a court of law.” (Sorry to take another break.) It is indeed disgraceful that none of the

biographers of Max Müller, nor anyone of his scholarly posterity has raised objection to this crude caricature of Thomas Babington Macaulay. We can understand Max Müller’s dilemma. While he was desperately occupied erecting his own memorial, he remembered that the meeting between Thomas Babington Macaulay and him was on some record. As Friedrich Maximilian Müller he himself had committed a blunder referring to this meeting. We remember his showing off to his mother: “I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India. He is

very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” To prevent questions and speculations on the background of that meeting in December 1854 and on the subjectmatters he himself put stories in the air. That the stories were self-contradicting, he did not notice. Reading these silly swindles of Max Müller and seeing the total absence of critical distance of the wonder that is called scholarship in this culture we are at times tempted to ask ourselves: Are we barking up on a wrong tree? Are we mistaken? How could all these swindles hold for over a century? Why and by whom Max Müller is made and conserved as a cultural

demigod? To be precise, we are not criticising Max Müller. We fail to understand his scholarly posterity. Are they no better “intellectual prostitutes”? Sorry, we don’t find a better term than that handeddown by “The Man Who Came to Dinner” we referred to in our chapter 7 and chapter 14. We beg pardon from the prostitutes of our days who are so despised by the bourgeois “intellectual prostitutes”. We assure that we are far from joining that “intellectual community” humiliating prostitutes who generally don’t have anything else than offering their body in the market to survive physically. We also do not

intend to discriminate those prostitutes who earn well. We think, it is not a matter of disgrace for these men or women in the contemporary societies. Here in our search we are dealing with “highly educated” persons who sell their body and soul out of greed and lust. We are dealing with persons who have created a social system in which most people are compelled to sell their body (work-power) to maintain their existence. There is no way to escape. On top of it, we are dealing here with persons who seduce the younger generation to follow their examples. They are prostitutes and pimps at the same time in the sense of “The Man

Who Came to Dinner”, who did not speak on prostitutes in general, but on “intellectual prostitutes”. We apologise taking this little but important aside. If the tales told by Max Müller were true, why was this episode to be introduced so cutely, so nicely, so entertainingly? Do men of missionary actions, “makers” and “doers” like Thomas Babington Macaulay have time to waste? And if they wanted to show off at all, do they misuse a helpless ignorant person like Max Müller and avail more suitable occasions? The way Max Müller characterised Thomas Babington Macaulay to be a

psychopath, projects more on Max Müller’s own personality. In his imbalanced mood while writing these silly lines he even forgot that Horace Hayman Wilson left British India in 1832 as the Head of the Mint in Kolkata and joined Oxford as the first BodenProfessor. Thomas Babington Macaulay came to India in 1834. Thus he could not have given Max Müller “a full account of his controversy, while in India, with men like Professor Wilson”. Is there a touch of takingrevenge? For being made a slavish combatant to carry out the 30 years plan of Thomas Babington Macaulay? And a slavish combatant he was as a matter of fact. But he did it voluntarily. We

shall deal with this issue in a while. We read the last part of Max Müller’s tale: “This went on for nearly an hour and was very pleasant to listen to, but most disappointing to a young man who had come well primed with facts to meet all these arguments, and who tried in vain to find a chance to put a single word. At the end of this socalled conversation Macaulay thanked me for the useful information I had given him, and I went back to Oxford a sadder and I hope a wiser man. What I had chiefly wished to impress on him was that Haileybury should not be suppressed, but should be improved, should not be ended but

mended. But it was easier and more popular to suppress it, and suppressed it was, so that in England, which has the largest Oriental Empire in the world, there is now not a single school or seminary for the teaching of oriental languages, ... in England the old argument remains the same: ‘We can always find interpreters if we pay them well, and if we only speak loud enough the natives never fail to understand what we mean.’” In 1902 Georgina Max Müller wrote: “This must be the interview so humorously described in Auld Lang Syne, where the young Professor, primed with every possible argument

in favour of Oriental studies, had to sit silent for an hour whilst the historian poured forth his diametrically opposite views, and then dismissed his visitor, who had tried in vain to utter a single word. ’I went back to Oxford,' says Max Müller, 'a sadder, and, I hope, a wiser man’”. ***** Again we have to put two and two together. Max Müller lived in Oxford. He was called to meet Thomas Babington Macaulay at his residence in London. How? There was then no other medium available than messenger or post. There was no hurry. Therefore,

there was no need sending a messenger to Oxford. Had he been called by a messenger, he would have mentioned it, as he did in case of the King in Berlin. But there was a need for a message by post. Where is that message in writing? In that message of Thomas Babington Macaulay there could be clear indications on the subject-matters for that envisaged meeting. Where is it? It is not available in any archive. What does it mean? Was this document deliberately destroyed? By whom? A wiser Max Müller would have either kept mum on this issue or stuck to the truth. Had he not been so obsessed to tell his mother about his meetings with all

celebrated personalities of that time, he could have kept mum after being called by a real big shot like Thomas Babington Macaulay. It must have been a spontaneous report to his mother. He must have felt that the outcome of that meeting was going to be the turning point in his career and life. And we assume that it actually was. We have not forgotten the last sentence of his report to the mother: “He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” This sentence indicates that Thomas Babington Macaulay explicated to him firstly his “30 years plan” and then defined precisely Max Müller’s would-be role in that plan.

What could be this role? We may not express our guess here and now. Instead we shall be patient, continue our search, scrutinise Max Müller’s activities from 1855 onward, and draw logical conclusions. A sentence with this clarity: “He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” he did never attribute to his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. He was genuinely overwhelmed meeting the power-giant Thomas Babington Macaulay. It does not escape our attention that Thomas Babington Macaulay did not take time for Max Müller for a second meeting. For him Max Müller was so

insignificant that he did not put this meeting even on any record. There was no need. It was just a routine matter from “master”, Thomas Babington Macaulay, to a low-graded staff of the East India Company, to Max Müller. We already referred to Max Müller’s dilemma when he was creating his own memorial as a scholar. In “My Autobiography” there is no mention of Thomas Babington Macaulay. We recall, he broke off his autobiography after his “early days in Oxford”. He obviously kept his later career undisclosed. Why did he not complete his “My Autobiography”? Instead he preferred to write “Auld Lang

Syne” building up his own memorial. We mentioned already the five sections. His section “Beggars” is revealing. It begins: “Often when I had related to my friends some of my painful experiences with beggars and they laughed at me, ‘Wait,’ I said, ‘I shall have my revenge ; and when I am unfit to do anything else, I shall write a book about Beggars’.” We get back to that “meeting” and to the subject-matters. Max Müller included this meeting in the section “Literary Recollections IV” and made an absurd caricature on Thomas Babington Macaulay. We are not psychoanalysts.

We can only raise questions. Why did he do it? Taking his revenge? Did Thomas Babington Macaulay “laughed at” him? Was he put in a cage again? ***** We take liberty of looking ahead. This “wiser” Max Müller did nothing else since 1855 than fulfilling the missions of Thomas Babington Macaulay. We recall those missions: He came to Kolkata in 1834 to cut down the activities of the “Sanskritists” and told them frankly (highlighted by us): “I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanskrit works. I am quite ready to take the

Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. ...In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. Of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be most useful to our native subjects. We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. It is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars.” He established the English medium

educational system in British India. The one pillar of his mission was: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”

The second pillar of his mission was clearly indicated in his letter to his father dated October 12, 1836: “It is my firm belief that, if our plan of education is followed up, there will not be a single idolater among respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect.” Ever since he was planning to erect the next Pillar for his missions to ensure that there was no relapse. He knew as a man of practice that it wouldn’t be possible

to destroy all ancient Sanskrit literature in Bharatavarsa. However, he observed keenly the competition of “indologists” in Europe “translating” those ancient literatures without learning the Sanskrit language proficiently. Yet they apparently got through with their inadequate “translations”. As a powerful implementer of long ranged policies on behalf of the East India Company he chalked out the plan to getting the ancient texts rather rewritten in the Christian spirit than relying on inadequate “translations”. As a powerful writer on history of his time he knew whatever he wrote was his personal perception of historical processes. It would be more so in

“translations” having inadequate knowledge of the Sanskrit language. So, why not plan “re-writings” clandestinely? This might have been the reason that he did not put “the erection of the third pillar” on official records. He reviewed coolly the candidates who were on the payroll of the East India Company. No other candidate appeared to him to be more suitable than the 31 years old Max Müller. At his 68 in age Horace Hayman Wilson was already too old for a mission of this long range. Moreover, it could have been difficult to keep Horace Hayman Wilson under strict discipline. In contrary to him Max Müller would most obediently carry out

all “his master’s orders”. In all probability Thomas Babington Macaulay knew about the swindles of Max Müller from his patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and gave Max Müller a hint on that. Considering the whole scenario we discard the caricature of the powerful missionary Thomas Babington Macaulay presented by Max Müller in his “Auld Lang Syne” as unacceptable. Also because, looking ahead, the “wiser” Max Müller did nothing else since 1855 than fulfilling the missions of Thomas Babington Macaulay. He did not have the stature to reject the immoral offer or proposal in that meeting. Power-

conscious as Thomas Babington Macaulay was, he gave him first a lecture on his missions, and then asked him to re-write the ancient texts in English in the Christian spirit as much as he could and call them as “translated” from the original language. For this mission there was no dearth of funds. In all probability, Max Müller agreed enthusiastically to sell his body and soul for this undertaking. We are reminded of so many examples in the letters to his mother like: “We stand every moment in God's hands, and He knows best what is for our real welfare. Trust in God is the only happiness on earth.” He was rewarded well, also money-wise.

***** We take liberty to refer to the book: Before the BEGINNING and after the END. Beyond the universe of physics. Rediscovering ancient insights by Rishi Kumar Mishra, Rupa & Co, New Delhi 2000. In the “Chapter Twenty” titled “The Vedas: Distortion and Misrepresentation” we read the following lines (p. 451 ff.): “British and other European ‘scholars’ have subjected the Vedas to sustained and widespread distortion over the past 200 years, ... these ‘scholars’ misinterpreted the

subjects dealt with in this most ancient record of the intellectual attainments of humankind. Their translations of the Veda Mantras, for example, are a scandal of monumental proportions. In consequence, India has suffered enormously. But the damage has affected more than just India, for as one layer of ignorance settled over another and this thick fog of distortion became covered with several coats of confusion, all of humanity was deprived of the rich knowledge contained in these texts. ...

The distortions were a result of two clearly discernible motives: first, to serve the interests of British colonialism; and second, to lend support to the proselytising activities of Christian missionaries. ... the British had launched a perfidious project of ‘mind-management’ in India. Thomas Babington Macaulay was the author of this project. The destruction of the Indian education system and its replacement with English education system were critical elements of his plans. ... The East India Company found an

extremely effective agent in Max Müller. It offered to fund him to the tune of one lakh of rupees (100,000) equivalent to approximately 10,000 pounds sterling – an enormous sum in those days – if he could undertake a translation of the Rig Veda in such a manner that it would destroy the Hindus’ belief in the Vedic religion.” We put different accents to this big crime than Rishi Kumar Mishra did and we are not so lenient and polite in our expressions like him. After all, we write now the year 2014. None of the biographers of Max Müller or “learned” descendants ever raised the question as to why the East India Company invested

good colonial profit for re-writings of ancient Sanskrit literature. And why by a no-body from Germany, who couldn’t get a job in Germany? We know, where there are no questions, there are no answers. But when we studied his “Auld Lang Syne” published in 1898 and 1899, his autobiography, which was published in 1901 and the biographies edited by his son in 1901 and by his wife in 1902 we were shocked. Not because a foreign “legionnaire” just couldn’t resist the temptation not to mention a real event of his life, which was something, like hitting the jackpot of a lottery and then tell concocted story about it. We don’t

overlook that Max Müller denigrated his earlier patron after his death. Even if he was deeply frustrated that Thomas Babington Macaulay not even cared to thank him for his absolute loyalty, being “his Masters Voice”, there is a limit of shabbiness. We are shocked because his “learned” descendants didn’t care to question any of the “facts” handed-down in those three publications time and again. Before we can close “Moment of Truth – Hour of Decision” that came at the end of December for Max Müller, we must take liberty to look a little ahead and report that after 1854 he never talked about his income, not even to his mother.

Max Müller practically sold everything he possessed, his own dignity included. The moment of truth determined that Max Müller had to live for the rest of his life in this new cage. Of course the new cage was a golden one. Our search will continue.

CHAPTER 19

INDOLOGY, LINGUISTICS, COMMUNICATIONS AND SCIENCES Max Müller is now 31 years. He is just settled down in Oxford. His patron Christian Charles Josias Bunsen has left England in June 1854. Now he has to stand on his own. However, he has now a fixed job in the Taylor Institution at Oxford. He has become “Taylorian Professor of Modern European Languages”, though he does not possess qualifications needed for the post. He is

not a member of Oxford University. He retains his contract of eight years in the “safe haven” of the East India Company. He is in the process to cope with all those “fall outs from the blue” and to organise his life at Oxford. He gets a chance to grow. Thomas Babington Macaulay, a real “very big shot” of the British Kingdom, calls him at his residence all on a sudden. In that meeting Max Müller realises that all the time, he was having this “very big shot” as patron within the East India Company. After examining him for about an hour Thomas Babington Macaulay recruits him as his special agent in his grand missionary

plan. Max Müller does not get time for his decision. He is taken by surprise. But he is afraid; he might not have an option. He will fall if he rejects. He realises even that he has to decide then and there. It is not relevant speculating whether he realised the consequences. He accepts the offer. Thus he just has sold his body, soul and practically everything he possess to a “master” whom he may never meet again. He is recruited as a special agent. He is asked to “edit” as many ancient texts of Bharatavarsa as possible and publish as “translations”. Money will not matter. Max Müller takes it as a fall out from

the Christian sky. We assume, he does not have the power to be reflective. He does not know the difference between “editing”, “re-writing”, “translating” and “tampering” texts written in the Sanskrit language. He knows instinctively that he could expect much more material returns than he ever dreamt of. He is overwhelmed. He is in need of relief. He must share this piece of “secret luck” with somebody close to him immediately. He has none than his mother. He knows also, he has to be careful. He starts writing to her, many trivialities, yet, all on a sudden, between trivialities he finds a way to get relief writing those two sentences:

“I made acquaintance this time in London with Macaulay, and had a long conversation with him on the teaching necessary for the young men who are sent out to India. He is very clear-headed, and extraordinarily eloquent.” Fifty years later, around 1895, while he starts writing his memoir, “Auld Lang Syne”, he remembers his emotional burden after meeting Thomas Babington Macaulay and that his mother was the single person who knew about that meeting. There is no other record. He realises that it was an unpardonable folly to leave behind such a mark on that issue at the end of December 1854. Thus

he is compelled to refer to that meeting. Is it just irony of history? Or is this the way how truths come out? Whatever that may be, thanks to this we get additional information on mental set up of the “intellectual prostitutes” of Max Müller’s time. Truths and morality are never the categories for “intellectual prostitutes” while they serve. In this context we are reminded of Max Müller’s confessions in the last Chapter of his “My Autobiography”. “One confession I have to make, and one for which I can hardly hope for absolution, whether from my friends or from my enemies. I have never done anything ; I have never been a

doer, a canvasser, a wirepuller, a manager, in the ordinary sense of these words.” Being a Christian believer, “We stand every moment in God's hands, and He knows best what is for our real welfare. Trust in God is the only happiness on earth.” He is only an instrument. He could have frankly and honestly confessed around 1895 how bluntly he was asked to re-write ancient Sanskrit texts in the Christian spirit, but then, who knows whether such a confession would have helped to build up his own memorial as a scholar or rather pollute that image. He decided for the confession, we have just read. “I have never been a doer, a canvasser, a

wirepuller, a manager, in the ordinary sense of these words.” ***** We feel an urgent urge to take an aside before we can continue with Max Müller as a special agent of the British Kingdom. We are confronted with a culture in which “science-disciplines” were emerging like mushrooms, since, say, the 17th century. In our current context we focus exemplarily on two of those “science-disciplines”: “Die Sprachwissenschaften” i.e. the “Linguistics” and the “CommunicationStudies”. We would like to look back in the history to understand how linguistics and communication-studies were defined

to be science-subjects, though in a speedy-motion. Reference books and courses offered in linguistics and in communication-studies in the “Elite-Universities” in Europe and elsewhere are not alien to us. We just do not swallow or even temporarily accept those virtual worlds and the bluffs delivered by vendors of linguistics and in communication-studies. We are not ready to be victim in thickets and jungles of artificial “term-systems” in Greek or Latin, or of the pretensions and bluffs behind those systems. In our first chapter we quoted one simple sentence formulated by Ernest Rutherford:

“A good scientific theory should be explicable to a barmaid.” We can follow Ernest Rutherford and also accept his statement. We have frankly revealed our intellectual status and our disposition earlier too. We are educationally Macaulay’s greatgrandchildren. We belong to Macaulay’s “new class”. We are brainwashed. Somehow we have grown to simpleminded straightforward persons. It has become our nature to scrutinise answers to our questions from various angles. And we demand a clear and exact language, and not deceptive packages of

terminology. Since time immemorial our ancestors have exchanged their observations, views, feelings, conclusions, knowledge on all aspects of their life in harmony with the nature. These were accumulated, stored and handed-down to us through the medium language in oral modus, later also in written modus. We have dealt with this issue in our Chapter Eleven. Here we focus on language as the medium of conveyance of accumulated knowledge. Language is not self purpose. If there is nothing to convey, there is no need of a language. In all human societies all learn own language as naturally as all learn to use

five senses and other physical organs. The rules guiding the use of the language (i.e. grammars), emerge and develop in daily practice. And these are not fruits of pre-fabricated theories. All members of a society learn these (grammatical) rules by heart. The need of grammar arises to understand conveyed accumulated knowledge in right contexts and perspectives. A need of “science-basedsupport” never arises. A language is older than its script. Before a language is needed individual knowledge has grown. Language is need for exchange of individual knowledge in a society. Language is the medium to verify, to compliment, to accumulate knowledge and finally to store it in

human memory, so to say, in the “hard disk” of human brain. Language is the vehicle of human exchanges. Since time immemorial, the learning of the vernacular language has functioned without misunderstandings in face-toface communications, in all human societies. When the need of external storage for accumulated knowledge in societies arises, signs, alphabets and words are invented by practice and applied in practice. Language is transferred to writing, to written modus. In this process there is no need, nor any scope, for “supports” of anything like “Linguistics” or “Communication-studies”. Learning

another language than the vernacular does function likewise. We are enough at “home” in the-wonderthat-is-the-prevalent-culture to look back into the process and comprehend when, where, how and for what purpose linguistics or communication-studies were created and marketed. The prevalent culture has its roots in the emergence of Moses. The God had revealed the rules of life to him, to him only. His followers believed in his claim. Thus “belief” became a guiding category. Those who would not believe were made to believe or were to bite the dust. The Testaments followed. Europeans restricted their belief in the

“translated” versions of the New Testament. They preferred to mould their culture on principles and guidelines that were not found in their own social practice. They were converted into the translated versions of the Bible. We shall deal with “translations” at its elementary level in a while. We must not get into those gruesome details how Christianity was spread in Europe. Christianity was accustomed to Latin. Then, some 1000 years later, the Arabs appeared in the Iberian Peninsula bringing another “holy script” and also “concepts” like philosophy and science, as well as the languages Arabic, Persian and Greek as medium for philosophy and

science. At that stage the need of learning Greek and Latin was intensively felt. We won’t get into the history of schools and higher schools as social institutions here. We accept that around that period there were places for learning. There are no controversies on the fact that the early European “universities” emerged in the second millennium of Christianity. The main subjects of teaching were Christian Religions, the two “Classical” Languages Greek and Latin, Laws justifying the rule of the rulers and rudimentary-healingknowledge. Learning religion is a matter of belief. Learning the rules of a language means committing the rules to

memory. Learning by heart has nothing to do with exercising science or adding to knowledge. The results were obviously satisfactory. The need of “sciencebased-support”, whatever that could be, was not felt. As a matter of fact, science as science had not reached European consciousness before the beginning of occupying foreign lands for plunder and exploitation, i.e. 16th century. The European universities, however, “upgraded” the subjects they taught by giving those subjects new foreign names like “Theology”, “Philology”, Jurisprudence, Medical Science and so on. We won’t get into the causes of this

development. These changes of labels were deceptive packages because these universities continued to teach the Bible, the Greek language, the Latin language, the laws and so on. The re-naming in “logies”, the Greek synonym for science or just adding “science” did not make any difference in quality. They did not know what science actually meant. Almost nothing is handed-down on the pre-Christian cultures in Europe. In all probability the accumulated knowledge of the ancestors were destroyed in the process of “Christianisation” based on translated versions of the Bible. The existing cultures in Europe are not a

result of own social practice. These cultures are an assimilation of foreign ideas and values which later claimed as to be their own. They did not feel the need to gain knowledge, to accumulate knowledge systematically, to develop science. Their belief in the holy script was enough. Later they imported science as they imported the Bible. They are accustomed in adorning themselves with borrowing plumes, taking any and all plumes that they came easily by. They make extensive practical use of “borrowed plumes” and develop new applications for them, like developing “technologies”. Europeans are not brilliant in discoveries. They may excel in inventing technological applications.

It was just not a co-incidence or a correlation that the 16th century is also marked by the beginning of robbery in foreign lands. In this unutterable immoral competition the Anglo-Saxons won by the beginning of the 18th century gaining control over the jewel amongst foreign lands, Bharatavarsa (India) and established the awful Era of Vasco da Gama. The riches of the British Kingdom originated mainly from the daylight-robbery of Indian people and of India. In this process the Britons were however confronted with an ancient culture based on vast knowledge stored in an ancient language that was no more spoken.

After the Britons recovered from their first mental shock, they started looking out for options to make the best of the new situation. In the occupied areas there was little time for reflections. Yet the Britons caught sight of one interesting perspective. The European Christians in general and the Britons in particular felt always inferior to the “Semites” because whatever culture was then there in Christian Europe came from the “Semites”, the Bible included. But in the 18th century the scenario of the distribution of power and wealth had changed and opened up a way to shed of their feeling of inferiority vis-à-vis the “Semites”.

The Britons were on the top in terms of power and also economically. And they were ruling over India. Grasping that the Indian cultural heritage was much older than that of the “Semites”, the Britons as Anglo-Saxons saw a chance of upgrading. Is there a way to relate the Christian Anglo-Saxons to the ancient Indian heredity? In the 18th century the Anglo-Saxons knew all about the machinations of Roberto de Nobili in the south of India. We recall, he tried to relate ancient Indian heritage to the Roman Christians with papal blessings. That adventure failed as we know. The Anglo-Saxons were pragmatic. Why not spin that idea a

little more and more slyly? We remember William Jones, the first demigod of modern “history” and later of “linguistics” as well, claiming in 1786 to have discovered “close linguistic affinity between Sanskrit, the language of Aryas, and Greek, Latin, and the Germanic and Celtic languages”. From the premise of “linguistic affinity” between those languages to the conception of a “language-family” was a tiny step. Especially German speaking “academicians” tendered their services to the Britons working on the language track. The Austrian Julius von Klaproth, heard the signals coined by Franz Bopp,

fiddled around the remarkable term “Indo-German” by relating it to a “linguistic kinship”, thought out that there might have also been a “biological kinship” and propagated this idea in 1823. An intensive discussion took place to decide on the “correct” term. The non-German anti-“Semites” preferred the term “Indo-European”. They didn’t like to be “germanised”. Franz Bopp found in 1833 that the term “Indo-European” was quite acceptable. They all knew, however, how it was meant. This kinship excluded implicitly the “Semites” from this exclusive lineage, of course. Jews or other “Semites” didn’t belong to this lineage

of “Indo-Europeans”. Franz Bopp coined thereafter “Sprachwissenschaft” (linguistics) and never cared to explain how learning a language or knowing about that a language exists can become a sciencesubject. A language has to be learnt by heart. There is no need, no room for science-supports. A language is vehicle to transport thoughts. Thoughts are not learnt by heart. Thoughts develop through observations and exchanges of observations. Franz Bopp coined also the “vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft” (comparative linguistics), another deceptive package. He was the first to

propagate that a comparison is per se a “science-activity”. By inventing deceptive packages he promoted himself to a “scientist”. Since then Franz Bopp and his impositions are foundations for other emerging “science” subjects. These were not created for the growth of knowledge. These were created to cover malpractices and crimes in occupied foreign lands. He sold his skills as the prototype of “intellectual prostitutes”. He is accepted in the “science-culture” of our day as a “science-giant”. We remember, Franz Bopp did not learn science. He even failed twice to get his Doctor-Degree. Thomas

Babington

Macaulay

welcomed the exclusion of the “Semites” and followed two other missions too. He knew, being by then evolved to a “historian”, all those Christian missions had always been a cover for looting other people. The diverse crusades had nothing to do with bringing the Cross to the “heathens”. Creating a “new class” in the occupied foreign lands was a more effective device to establish sustained exploitation than by proselytising. To establish sustainable dominance of the Anglo-Saxon-Christians he thought out his “education”-programme and was in a position to implant that plan first in India. This was one of his missions.

Next, he started to implement his next mission: Re-definition of the ancient culture in India and re-writing of all ancient texts in Anglo-Saxon-Christian spirit, the whole in the English language. He knew the importance of covering the ground with printed texts that could be stored in the libraries. Of course on front shelves. He called Max Müller at the End of December 1854, who had just completed the course to become a totally submissive combatant, another prototype of “intellectual prostitutes” and asked him to start with the mission of “translations”. We cannot close this aside and get back Max Müller’s activities from 1855

onwards before we have discussed the phenomenon called “translation”. We are not out to get into an academic discussion on “translation”. Even if we wanted to enter into a simple, straightforward and fundamental discussion, it would not have been possible to do so. The reason behind is simple and straight. Translation is a non-issue for the modern “languageacrobats” or “communication-talkers”. We won’t get into a criticism of these “science-subjects” either. We leave etymology also to the etymologists. We are simple-minded and look into “translation” and all that goes with it, at an elementary level, at the level of real social practice.

Interpersonal dealings are only possible when the persons involved can understand each other. Whatever is said or shown by gestures and other expressions must arrive at the listener’s mind or to the seer without distortions. At the receiving end the “translation” takes place. At the receiving end, the receiver collates the new piece of information with his knowledge stored in his memory and decides whether he has understood the information without distortions. Even if the depth of knowledge between the exchanging persons differs, in face-to-face exchanges, in oral mode, any eventual distortion in the process of translation can be mutually corrected. This happens

at all levels of human social practice. Otherwise our ancestors would not have accumulated knowledge and handeddown this to us. We mean knowledge, not technology. Knowledge is based on discovery. Technology is invention of practical use. In written exchanges there is no guarantee of a correct “translation”. The reader will not exactly know what the writer has exactly meant. Even if the writer is intimately known to the reader, the reader will understand the sent message only within the limits of his mental capacity. In written modes a correct “translation” is impossible. Another factor of distortion intervenes in

the process of written exchanges. The reader can not exactly assess the exact levels of understanding and assess the depth of knowledge of the writer immediately while he reads. Lots of meticulous checkups are needed to ascertain the depth of knowledge of the writer. In written exchanges lies and swindles can easily be transported. We must not enter into many details of distortions out of the nature and malice of written exchanges and deliberate distortions to manipulate us. We are experiencing what is happening to us after the emergence of the digital technology. All doors and outlets are wide open for crude mind managements. In the digital world there are no fakes, as

there are no measuring rods any more. No originals are available. The more we are conscious about the pitfalls in written exchanges, the lesser would be the chance to make us believe by means of printed books, the lesser arrogant we shall become in our claims of acquiring knowledge. We must learn to ask ourselves, how, from whom, we know when we claim to know something that is beyond the realm of our observations and experiences. We must rigorously learn to know and reject beliefs. All the time we are dealing with at the level of vernacular language. The chance of correct translations decreases logically when a foreign

language is involved. An additional fundamental factor of distortion comes in. A language is a medium for expressing observations, experiences and knowledge. Knowledge originates from discoveries of what is in the universe; descriptions of nature, descriptions of relationship between nature and society and descriptions of relationships within the society. Accumulation of knowledge is science, breaking down later in science branches. So, knowledge depends on the given social and natural surroundings. Thus languages develop differently, according to the given social and natural surroundings. Without exact knowledge of the culture and of the natural

surroundings a correct translation from a foreign language is impossible. Unless we comprehend these elementary rules of interexchange, of translation, we will never get to knowledge. Getting to knowledge is hard work, always seeking for eventual corrections. The lazier we become, the more we shall have to depend on Moses or the likes. Belief and knowledge are two different things. These rules are simple and clear. We come back to the realm of face-toface exchanges through vernacular medium once again. We learn our vernacular language in the family, in the schools, in the post school institutions to facilitate correct translations and thus to

harmonious social exchanges. And it functions well even when there are different levels of understanding and knowledge within a society. Classical foreign languages like Greek and Latin are learnt in the schools less intensively than vernacular. To be able to understand literature in those languages intensive post-school studies are necessary. This is also the case in the realm of “modern” languages. One needs years to learn foreign languages and whenever it is possible, one has also to stay for quite some time in the surroundings of the foreign language to acquire workable ability oftranslation even in the realm of face-to-face

exchanges. A language always reflects the culture where the language grows. It is not the language that contributes to the growth of a culture. It is the other way around. The language is a medium of transport for the culture. We refer to our Chapter Eleven. A long time had elapsed and many ways had been trodden before characters for writing were invented as an external device to store languages. Compressing sounds into characters in a way that the written-mode substitutes the oral-mode is hard work. Yet the written-mode always remains a secondary choice. This is the reason why the knowledge

stored in the Vedas are handed down in oral-mode even after the writtenmode was invented. This is the practice till today. In written-mode we read only. We do not hear the sounds. Therefore the written-mode is always inferior to the oral-mode. We recall in this context that 97 characters are needed to transport the knowledge stored in the Vedas. It is known that the “Chhando Bhasha”, the Vedic language, invented first the “Brahmi” characters and later on the Devanagari characters. Devanagari is also the type of characters of “Laukika Bhasha”, a post-Vedic language, the Sanskrit language. The Sanskrit language

needs 64 or 63 characters to transport the knowledge stored in Sanskrit texts. After the invention of Devanagari characters a fourth language is handeddown: “Devanagari Bhasha” with 51 characters. It follows logically that the knowledge stored in the Vedic language is diluted when it is translated into Sanskrit or in any other post-Vedic languages. In other words, the whole of the Vedic knowledge cannot be translated into any inferior languages. At best, it can be tried to describe the whole with no guarantee of an undistorted description. When we come down to the mother tongues of the “Indologists”, to their

vernacular languages, we must raise the question: Is it conceivable that the knowledge stored in the Vedic language or even in Sanskrit could not be described and understood in any of these vernacular languages of the “Indologists”, simply because the cultural horizon of these languages are insufficiently developed, not to say these are too primitive? Arriving at this point of clarification we apologise in taking the liberty to refer to the allegory: What happens in the land of the blinds when it is tried to describe an elephant? We do not comprehend why and how “scholars” in the-wonder-that-is-theprevalent-culture sublimate their memory and claim to have picked up

ability of translations of texts in such remote languages like Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit without ever learning it systematically and meticulously. Are these “scholars” mentally sick or are they simply dazzlers, charlatans and “intellectual prostitutes”. Do they do it because some people buy it? We assert unconditionally that none, absolutely none in the-wonder-that-isthe-prevalent-culture has acquired abilities to understand any of the ancient texts written in the Vedic or in the Sanskrit language. At most, all those “scholars” who talk about Sanskrit literature, non-Indians and Indians, could gain some vague ideas on the themes and

characters in the texts from available translations in Arabic and Persian and from the dubious “Pandits”, from those “intellectual prostitutes” in Kolkata. Whatever they have sold or sell as translations are nothing else than sellable fantasia serving particular interests. We close this aside and get back to Max Müller in the year 1855. ***** We recall, Max Müller sells his body, mind, soul and practically everything he possessed at the End of December 1854 to his master Thomas Babington Macaulay whom he will never meet again. On January 14, 1855 he writes to his mother (highlighted by us):

“Aufrecht has at last made up his mind to go to London. ... I shall look out for somebody later on, who will do the mechanical work of copying and compiling, so that I shall only have the constructing of the text to do. Aufrecht was too good for this mechanical work. I do hope he will succeed better in London than here. ...” He has already assumed the posture of a boss who can hire and fire. It goes without saying that Max Müller has shifted in Oxford from Park Place to a more luxurious area, in St. John Street. Later we shall find an indication, rather casually, that he has bought his new

residence, at 55, St. John’s Street. We wonder that he is able to buy a residence in Oxford in 1855. Where did the money come from? And how did he earn this money? In October 1855 he becomes a British citizen. He is now 32 years old. The reason behind this decision we do not know. Thus he is no more a foreign legionnaire. He is only a British “intellectual prostitute” and an overzealous missionary too. We find the following lines in the letter to his mother dated March 23, 1856 (highlighted by us): “... The things that annoy us in life are after all very trifling things, if we

always bear in mind for what purpose we are here. And even in the heavier trials, one knows, or one should know, that all is sent by a higher Power, and in the end must be for our best interests. It is true we cannot understand it, but we can understand that God rules in the world in the smallest and in the largest events, and he who keeps that ever in mind has the peace of God, and enjoys his life as long as it lasts. I am sure that a quiet, contented mind is better than all medicine and Carlsbad. ...” This primitive belief in God hinders Max Müller to reflect on and over

moral and conscience. He does not feel even the need to justify all his doings and/or questioning to whatever happens to him. The following lines we find in Georgina Max Müller’s presentation (p. 178/179) of a letter to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, written on April 25, 1856. These lines to his mentor demonstrate how unscrupulously Max Müller operates as a special combatant for the missions of Thomas Babington Macaulay. In only 16 months he practices loose-talking of a “scholar” even to his mentor (highlighted by us): “... With regard to Megasthenes, I do not know how I can help you. As far as I have occupied myself with the

chronological question, which has never been a passion with me, I do not see in the least how Megasthenes could know more than Wilford or Sir W. Jones. Megasthenes could not know anything but what we know, for though we know nothing of Indian history, we know the history of Indian literature sufficiently well to be able to ascertain that no annals have ever been lost, simply because none ever existed. We have the most distinct traces in the Rig-veda of the schism between the Brahmans and the followers of the Zend-Avesta.” We know that Max Müller is unable to read and understand the contents of Rig

Veda, as well as of Zend-Avesta. Then again he writes to his mentor on May 4, 1856 (p. 180). “... Could Megasthenes make any discovery besides that which we have made from Sanskrit literature? This question must be answered, and there I am afraid Megasthenes with his total ignorance of Sanskrit will have the worst of it, ...” For those who did not know that Max Müller never learnt the Sanskrit language, such loose talks may appear to be extraordinarily “scholarly”. But we recall Megasthenes who lived in Bharatavarsa for eleven years and has written four volumes on that land. We

remember also that swindler “Sir W. Jones”. And who is “Wilford”? Georgina Max Müller’s presented another letter to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen in her translation, written on April 25, 1856 (p. 181-182). We wonder, how often he has written to his mentor right in the beginning of his new missionary career (highlighted by us): “I feel somewhat drawn to India—a desire difficult to resist in the end. Only I do not know how to get there ; but my life here seems so aimless and unfruitful that I shall not be able to bear it for very much longer. I thought the other day whether I could

not manage to go to India with the Maharajah Dhulip Singh. He is very well spoken of, and he returns next year after having learnt in England what good things he may do some day for his Fatherland in India. It seems to me it would form the natural nucleus of a small Indo-Christian colony, and it is only necessary to create such a centre in order to exercise one's power of attraction on all sides. After the last annexation the territorial conquest of India ceases— what follows next is the struggle in the realm of religion and of spirit, in which, of course, centres the interests of the nations. India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or

Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports, because its fall would have been inconvenient for the Government. But if the Englishman comes to see that the tree must fall, sooner or later, then the thing is done, and he will mind no sacrifice either of blood or of land. For the good of this struggle I should like to lay down my life, or at least to lend my hand to bring about this struggle, Dhulip Singh is much at Court, and is evidently destined to play a political part in India. I wish I could get in touch with him in some quite natural way. Could it be managed with the help of Prince Albert, or would you

help me to it ? I do not at all like to go to India as a missionary, that makes one dependent on the parsons ; nor do I care to go as a Civil Servant, as that would make me dependent on the Government. I should like to live for ten years quite quietly and learn the language, try to make friends, and then see whether I was fit to take part in a work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching, that entrance which this teaching finds into every human heart, which is freed from the ensnaring powers of priests and from the obscuring influence of

philosophers. Whatever finds root in India soon overshadows the whole of Asia, and nowhere could the vital power of Christianity more gloriously realize itself than if the world saw it spring up there for a second time, in a very different form from that in the West, but still essentially the same.” We feel, we must not additionally comment on this self-revealing letter. We only would like to add a few facts. Maharajah Dhulip Singh was born in 1837. “Maharajah” means a greater Raja. Raja is a title awarded to the top mercenaries of the Britons with the blessings of the British occupants in

British India. Dhulip Singh was proclaimed Maharaja in 1843 i.e. when he was six years old. He was deposed at the age of ten and was put into the care of Dr. John Login. No Indians could meet him in private. As a matter of British policy, he was to be “anglicised” in every possible respect. He was converted to Christianity before he turned 15. In 1854 he was sent to Britain. He chose to live in Britain. He had never planned “to play a political part in India.” In 1856 Max Müller’s Maharajah Dhulip Singh was 19 years old. Max Müller obviously does not care for facts and sells incredible primitive stories

even to his mentor. Yet we are thankful to him for his confessions: Ø first, “I should like to live for ten years quite quietly and learn the language”; Ø second, “then see whether I was fit to take part in a work, by means of which the old mischief of Indian priestcraft could be overthrown and the way opened for the entrance of simple Christian teaching”; and Ø third, “nowhere could the vital power of Christianity more gloriously realize itself than if the world saw it spring up there

for a second time, in a very different form from that in the West, but still essentially the same.” In 1882 Max Müller’s Maharajah Dhulip Singh left Britain for France and repudiated Christianity. He wanted an increase in his pension which was refused. In this context we are remembered of another fabricated story on Dwarakanath Thakur narrated by Max Müller while he stayed in Paris. He swindled at that time also. He never met him. Here too, he could not know that “the Maharajah Dhulip Singh is very well spoken of, and he returns next year after having learnt in England

what good things he may do some day for his Fatherland in India.” He must have read somewhere the name Dhulip Singh and tells a fantastic story by relating himself in that story. This is the way of charlatans and swindlers. ***** In September 1856 his Third Volume of Rig Veda is published. On the title page there is a minor change. This volume is edited by: Max Müller M.A., Christ Church, Oxford. The comma between Christ Church and Oxford has been added. We ascertain however a remarkable “confession” in the preface. The Preface carries the date Oxford, June 5, 1856. We may not comment on

these two issues. We quote the last sentence of the last but one paragraph. We take a note of this sentence: “I have had again for this volume the valuable assistance of my learned friend Dr. Aufrecht, and I sincerely regret that I shall no longer enjoy this advantage, as much of the correctness and accuracy of the last volume was due to his conscientious cooperation, joined to the kind assistance which I have never failed to receive from my honoured friend Professor H. H. Wilson.” Max Müller evolves rapidly to a chatter-box on all current topics amongst European “scholars”, claims to have

translated many texts and expresses his missionary zeal. Does he do it to demonstrate “his master’s voice”, a master who is completely out of his reach? Or does he indirectly give accounts to his remote master? Whatever the case may be. In December 1857 he is thirty-four years old. He expresses to his mother (highlighted by us): “My birthdays here are always quiet and lonely ... I often can hardly believe that I am already so old, and you are quite right when you say that I must no longer think of marrying. ...I am satisfied with what God has given me. I often long for a larger sphere of usefulness, and my wish to

go to India has revived strongly of late. It is quite possible the East India Company may be done away with, and that Government will undertake to rule the country. Whether my Veda will be ruined by this I don't know, but I would willingly exchange this work for a few years, for a scientific mission to India. But these are only ideas and we will await quietly what God sends. My little horse "Folly" is a constant pleasure, but it costs a good deal, ... My Christmas will be very quiet and lonely whilst you are all eating your Stolle joyfully. ... Now I am busy on a book on Indian Religion, and the Veda too is getting

on.” In May 1858 he becomes a fellow in All Souls, a College at Oxford. As a fellow he shifts to a residence there and lets out his house, 55, St. John’s Street. On June 7, 1858 he writes to his mother: “My house will be let; my furniture I bring to my rooms here. The rooms are larger, three of them. But now I can't marry, or receive you as a guest. The Jelfs are here, and are very sorry that I have joined the Monks. Nearly all our fellows belong to the best families in England, several are members of Parliament, some in the Ministry.”

In December 1858, Max Müller is 35 years old. Georgina Max Müller presented a not-translated letter to M. Renan dated December 15, 1858 on pages 218/219. In all probability this M. Renan was the French popular writer Joseph Ernest Renan (1823 – 1892). This letter reveals in which shallow and muddy waters Max Müller operates. We quote only parts that are related to our context and highlighted by us: “...Surely there was something grand in the enthusiasm of the faith with which men like Sir W. Jones and Colebrooke pierced into the jungle of Sanskrit, and where should we be if Wilson had not opened to us many

a smooth road into that enchanted forest ? However, I know what you mean, only the absence of a bold critical spirit is not to be ascribed to the English nation as a whole, it is the languid temper of the present generation. But then there was a time when England had giants in thought, and Davids in boldness and faith. It will come again, and even now what you take for indolence and cowardice is more truly a feeling of awe at the greatness of the questions which now occupy the best minds in France, in Germany, and in England. ... Might I ask you whether anything has been done to carry your reprint of your translation of my Essay on

Mythology through the Press? I sent you the proof-sheets some time ago, but have not heard of it since. I have been very busy, as I am printing a book on the Vedic Age. ... In the summer the fourth volume of the Veda will be finished, if my health allows me to work hard. As soon as I have brought out my book, I have promised to write several reviews, among the rest one on your Origine de la langue, but at present I have not a single moment to spare for anything but the Veda!” We find another letter to “M. Renan” dated January 3, 1859 on the following pages 220/221 of Georgina Max

Müller’s Book (highlighted by us): “Though I cannot say with Goethe I believe that I am of the religion of Job, yet I thank you most heartily for your Livre de Job. Your introduction is excellent, but now and then one feels like a cat stroked the wrong way. I shall hardly be able to resist the temptation of saying something about it in the Saturday Review, though I have made a vow not to write any reviews till I have finished my own book. I like very much that little hint you give about Aurora, and your reasons why Hebrew remains so barren in myths. Is it not owing also to the strongly marked radical

features of every Semitic word, every one telling its own tale by its three letters, and retaining its appellative power against all equivocation? How can you have pantomimes if every person as soon as he comes on the stage tells you that he is not the Lion, but Smug the Joiner ? But the Aryan nations have had their revenge. When language had played all her tricks on them, they let her go, and made themselves a new language, and called it Philosophy, and that language the Semites have never learnt. I was delighted, as I need not tell you, at my election at the ‘Institut,’ and I thank you for your kind and active support. I wish I

could do it in person, but till July I must slave at Oxford.” On March 26, 1859 Max Müller writes to his mother: “...You have little idea how comfortable the life in College is, and how one lives all day only for oneself and one's work, without being disturbed by anything. I am printing my “book on Ancient Sanskrit Literature, ...” This “book on Ancient Sanskrit Literature” brings us back to the beginning of our search, to those quoted lines telling precisely the prevailing Modern History of Human Culture in a

nut shell. He did not disclose a single source of his “knowledge”. The published literature on this subject is not unknown to us. Modern Scholars have, as it seems, believed in these findings of Max Müller M.A. and based their own “scholarly” works on these findings. Willingly, as it appears. In contrary to the belief of the modern scholars we wanted to know how the author of these findings, Max Müller M.A., came to his findings. We based our search, as mentioned in other context, on the wisdom that is universally practiced in daily life through ages in all human societies. This wisdom is simple. Whenever

someone tells a tale, we put two simple questions: who is the narrator and how does the person come to know what he is telling about. Thus we found out who this Max Müller M.A. really was. We must not repeat our findings. The real life and the career of Max Müller M.A. reveal that in no way he acquired any of the needed qualifications to write “A HISTORY OF ANCIENT SANSKRIT LITERATURE, SO FAR AS IT ILLUSTRATES, THE PRIMITIVE RELIGION OF THE BRAHMINS.”

***** Max Müller dated the preface of “A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. So far as it illustrates the Primitive

Religion of the Brahmins” August 3, 1859. On this day Friedrich Maximilian marries Georgina, the elder daughter of Riversdale Grenfell and Charlotte. Georgina takes over the name: Georgina Max Müller. On December 28, 1859 his “Master”, the eminent missionary Thomas Babington Macaulay dies. So in theory, his “Master” could have enjoyed the fruits of his coup of December 1854. There is nothing on records, how satisfied “the Master” was with the performances of the special combatant for his missions of re-defining ancient “Indian” culture and re-writing Sanskrit texts. He might not have noticed the way how his

overzealous front-line agent Max Müller invented the Aryan-race. How does he do it? We shall report in a little while. Thomas Babington Macaulay‘s services to the British Kingdom were rewarded by the British Crown in 1857 raising him to the life peerage as first Baron Macaulay of Rothley in the County of Leicester. How does Max Müller arrive at the “Aryan-race”? First he claims that he read in the Rig Veda how those migrated “Aryans” in “India” used to sing Hymns on their beloved “Aryan” land of origin. “Aryan-race” goes with “Aryan land” smoothly, isn’t it? Does it matter that he is unable to read and understand any

Indian language, not to talk of the Rig Veda’s Vedic Language? Does it matter that he is still ignorant of the fact that the Rig Veda is written in the Vedic language having 97 characters and not in Sanskrit language having 64 characters? Does it matter that the Vedas do not include a single Hymn? To be frank, nothing has mattered yet. None before Max Müller in 1859 has put these two words “Aryans” and “race” together as an “Aryan-race”. This we read in the preface of “A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature”. Since then is the existence of the “Aryan-race” an accepted fact. It has built up the selfesteem of the Anglo-Saxons by relating

them to this ancient heredity, which is much older than that of the “Semites”. Then, we recall the quotation in the beginning of our search. We have read the whole preface. He just makes use of the general academic practice in this culture. He smuggles therein one “coined-term” after another amending them a little. For example: We know that Max Müller never heard the sound of the Vedic or of the Sanskrit language. Yet he claims to have detected similar sounds in languages and then proceeds to language affinities, from language affinities to language-family, from language family to language-kinship, from language kinship to biological

kinship, from biological kinship to races. His successors, the modern scholars do accept this conjuring trick as an ingenious breakthrough. Thus we are faced with two major races: The “Aryan-race” and the inferior “Semiticrace”. All these swindles are going strong. In our days too. In a land of swindlers anything goes through. Max Müller is now 36 years old. He was worth the money robbed and spent by the East India Company on behalf of the British Kingdom. He does not only create the “Aryan-race”, but he also lays a fundament for a new Christian history of the world. He arbitrarily dates Sanskrit texts on the basis of an arbitrary

selection of texts in Devanagari letters that he cannot read and understand. Who will want to know how these texts were dragged away from “India” by the “colonisers”. The method is just “sleights of data” in a favourable power situation. In his dating acrobatics Max Müller sets out from the “Genesis”, of course. Did he have an alternative, being a Christian? He knows that before 9.00 o'clock on October 23, 4004 BC., there was no human being on the earth. Later, around 2448 BC, the deluge came because of “Sodom and Gomorrah”. All life was swamped except that on Noah’s Ark. Then again human culture and

civilisation began. Of course time passed by till the “Aryan race” evolved. Unfortunately for him, the Hellenes had documented the period after the coming of Buddha without gaps, i.e. from about 500 BC. Therefore, Max Müller has to place his swindling energy in the gap between 2448 BC and 500 BC. Within this chronological frame he creates havoc applying his dating acrobatics. He doesn’t face competition yet. And he had the power of the “British Empire” behind him. It has worked. ***** On May 8, 1860 Horace Hayman

Wilson, the first Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University, dies. In 28 years of his professorship of Sanskrit there, he was not able to fulfil the main purpose of the “Boden chair”, i.e. translating the Bible into Sanskrit. The reason is simple. He did not know Sanskrit and no “Pandits” of Kolkata were at his disposal at Oxford. None the less he published three volumes of Rig Veda in English in the years 1850, 1854 and 1857 claiming that he translated these from the original Sanskrit version. Interestingly enough, Max Müller publishes his Rig Veda in Sanskrit letters in the years 1849, 1854, 1856 and 1862. We wonder, whether “original Sanskrit version” and “in Sanskrit letters” were

identical. Whatsoever. There had not been a proposal, from no corner, that these two gentlemen at Oxford, the first BodenProfessor of Sanskrit at Oxford University and the second Taylor Professor for Modern Language, should publish the Rig Veda together. The East India Company financed both of them and both publications. Does it mean something? We have not overlooked that Horace Hayman Wilson remained all his life on the pay roll as East India Company’s very obedient servant, also as the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford University. This fact reveals the close

hidden link between the East India Company and Oxford University as well. Now the Boden-Professorship of Sanskrit at Oxford University is vacant. Max Müller sees his chance to get a professorship at Oxford University. He wants to get the Boden-Professorship. It is a lifetime post and it carries also an additional £ 400 than the Taylor professorship. It is said that the monetary aspect was secondary to him. Quite logically. By then he has enough money at his disposal. For him it is a matter of esteem and recognition. Whatever that might have meant. We read Georgina Max Müller’s report on this issue (p.235/236):

“When the funeral was over, Max Müller announced himself as a candidate for the vacant Chair, and soon issued his testimonials, which included the names of nearly every Oriental scholar of real eminence in the world. Though the election was not to be before December, the canvass, which was begun at once, occupied nearly the whole year.” While the campaign for the vacant Boden Professorship of Sanskrit at the Oxford University is vigorously on, Max Müller’s mentor, Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, dies on November 28, 1860 in Bonn as a Baron. Two years before he expired, in 1858, he was given

the title “Baron” for life, not for inheritance. It is unfortunate for Max Müller that both of his powerful mentors expired before he could be installed as successor of Horace Hayman Wilson at Oxford University. He naturally gets support from the East India Company represented by those who supervised Max Müller’s fulfilling his Master’s missions. These supervisors were not heavyweights like Thomas Babington Macaulay. And the folk of Christian Charles Josias Bunsenwere carrying even less weight after he had resigned as Ambassador of Prussia at the Court of Queen Victoria.

On December 7, 1860 the election for the second Boden Professorship of Sanskrit at Oxford University takes place. After a tough and dirty campaign, however, even a “lighter weight” on the pay roll of the East India Company than Max Müller’s “teacher and friend” Horace Hayman Wilson, a “bachelor of Arts” from Oxford, a teacher for Sanskrit at Haileybury College, Monier Monier-Williams (1819-1899) gets the appointment. His qualifications? He had compiled a Sanskrit grammar (in 1846 and revised the same in 1860), and he had compiled a Sanskrit–English dictionary in 1854. But in that rather dirty campaign he is able to produce trump-card, a letter of Horace Hayman

Wilson dated April 21, 1860: “14 upper Wimpole Street, April 21, 1860. My dear Williams, I am quite incompetent to give you any hints for your industry, for I have been and am suffering dreadfully. I am about to undergo an operation; and, as there is always a certain amount of risk in such an operation at my age, I recommend your being alive to the chance of a vacancy. I always have looked to you as my successor; but you will have a formidable competitor in M. Mueller, not only for his celebrity, but personal influence. However, if God be pleased, I may get over the trial, and for a few years

more keep you in expectancy. Yours ever affectionately, H. H. Wilson.” The publication of this letter leads logically to the rejection of Max Müller who was “a formidable competitor ..., not only for his celebrity, but personal influence.” Horace Hayman Wilson, always a loyal servant of the East India Company, had to take a lot of humiliations as long as Thomas Babington Macaulay and Christian Charles Josias Bunsen were alive and Max Müller enjoyed career and life being their pet. We recall the years since 1847 when Max Müller edited his “Rig-veda”

under the supervision of Horace Hayman Wilson. Following the pecking order of the East India Company Max Müller was pulled up short. Horace Hayman Wilson was permitted as the Boden-Professor of Oxford University, to translate his “Rig Veda” into English, but he suffered seeing the privileges given to Max Müller. Rather slyly Max Müller dedicated “A history of ancient Sanskrit literature” to: “HORACE HAYMAN WILSON, ESQ., Boden-Professor of Sanskrit, Associate of the Institute of France, etc.. This work is inscribed as a token of Admiration and Gratitude by his Pupil and Friend MAX MUELLER”. This sly but crude dedication did not appease Horace Hayman Wilson.

We do not overlook that Max Müller’s book A history of ancient Sanskrit literature came out in March 1860. Horace Hayman Wilson wrote that letter on “April 21, 1860.” What can Max Müller do in this situation? Analysis of social dynamics is unknown to him. He is too frustrated to be able to account the incident as the will of his God. He writes to his mother on December 16. 1860: “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.” And he lets his friends console him and then turns towards his missions and continue to fulfil those with zeal, mostly covering the ground by publishing Sanskrit texts in English furiously. At the end of October 1862 he brings out the fourth volume of his “Rig-veda”. It is fascinating how the “editor” differs from volume to volume although these volumes are only parts of the editor’s “Rig-veda”. This last volume is edited

by “Max Müller M.A., Fellow of ALL Souls’ College, Correspondent de L’institut de France, ETC. Published under the Patronage of the Right Honourable Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for India in Council.” The “Right Honourable Her Majesty” has abolished her agency, the East India Company and also the “Secretary of State for India in Council”. This volume is “dedicated to Her Most Excellent Majesty VICTORIA, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, this earliest record of the religious institutions of the natives of India is by gracious permission dedicated by HER MAJESTY’S faithful subject and devoted servant, MAX MÜLLER.” Does this dedication

indicate something? Well! Max Müller is no longer a special agent of Thomas Babington Macaulay. No more. “By gracious permission” ... he is now “HER MAJESTY’S faithful subject and devoted servant, MAX MÜLLER.” Nonetheless, he has to continue as the “Taylorian Professor for modern languages” at Oxford. We remember his “personal assistant” Dr. Theodor Aufrecht. He was senior to him by two years, had studied classic philology and oriental languages at Berlin, had completed his studies with a doctoral thesis on De accentu compositorium Sanskritorum (Accents of Sanskrit Compound) in 1847 when he

was twenty-six and had been teaching in Berlin since 1850. Being of Jewish origin he migrated to Oxford, helped Max Müller in editing his “Rig-veda”. He ended this assistantship in 1855 and applied for the Professorship of Sanskrit at the King’s College, London. His contribution was acknowledged by Max Müller even in the preface of the last volume of his Rig-veda in 1862. So far it might have been all right for Max Müller to take. But how did he cope with that Theodor Aufrecht got an employment (1859–1864) at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University and prepared there a catalogue of Sanskrit manuscripts in two volumes? He also

prepared the Catalogue of Sanskrit manuscripts at Trinity College, Cambridge. We recall Max Müller’s epoch making Book: “A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature” came out in 1859. So we are wondering: Why two renowned universities, Oxford and Cambridge felt a need for catalogues of Sanskrit manuscripts available there in spite of the dating of Sanskrit literature in A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature by Max Müller? Had Max Müller not already dated them in 1859? Does it indicate that academicians at Oxford and Cambridge did not esteem the performances of the special agent Max Müller? We do not know.

Before we take leave from Theodor Aufrecht we must mention that he became Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Linguistics (1862–1875) at Edinburgh University and succeeded in 1875 Christian Lassen at Bonn University. We do not know how Max Müller took these two events. Then we find two volumes of Rig Veda in Latin letters (1861–1863) published by Theodor Aufrecht. And again we are too simple-minded to comprehend how he could decipher Sanskrit letters of Rig Veda and reproduce that, whatever he might have deciphered learning the Sanskrit language from Franz Bopp, in Latin letters without ever hearing the

sound of the Sanskrit language. What do all these indicate characterising “the wonder that is this European Christian culture”? Whatsoever. Max Müller does not get an entry to Oxford University till 1865. He does not enter the university as a professor, but as “Oriental SubLibrarian at the Bodleian”. Yes, it is the same library where Theodor Aufrecht worked from 1859 before he became Professor of Sanskrit and Comparative Linguistics in 1862 at Edinburgh University. Even for this minor position he had to put up a tough fight.

The Taylorian Professorship for modern languages is to be dissolved in 1868. In 1868 Max Müller is 45 years old. Some provisions were to be made for him. The Oxford University created a new Professorship of “Comparative Philology” in the same year. Max Müller is the only candidate for this new Professorship. Thus he becomes a part of Oxford University as a teacher too. He continues as ever, carries out “His Master’s Missions”. Being always on the run he did not find an opportunity to learn any Indian language. What is “Comparative Philology” actually? Georgina Max Müller presented a letter in original dated December 16,

1868 on her pages 357/358 to the Duke of Argyll soon after his appointment as Secretary of State for India. This letter reveals the missionary set up of Max Müller’s mind and its quality. We reproduce parts of this letter (highlighted by us): “...Though I have never been in India, I have many friends there, both among the civilians and among the natives, and I believe I am not mistaken in supposing that the publication in England of the ancient sacred writings of the Brahmans, which had never been published in India, and other contributions from different European scholars towards

a better knowledge of the ancient literature and religion of India, have not been without some effect on the intellectual and religious movement that is going on among the more thoughtful members of Indian society. ...India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. ...The results of the educational work carried on during the last twenty years are palpable everywhere. They are good and bad, as was to be expected. It is easy to find fault with what is called Young Bengal, the product of English ideas grafted on the native mind. But Young Bengal,

with all its faults, is full of promise. ... A new national literature will bring with it a new national life and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of, nay, much of the work which is theirs they would probably disclaim. The Christianity of our nineteenth century will hardly be the Christianity of India. But the ancient religion of India is doomed—and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be ?” In March 1869 Max Müller proves himself to be a notorious swindler in the

land of swindlers. He publishes a book, “Volume I of Rig-Veda-Sanhita. The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans. Translated and Explained by F. Max Müller, M.A., L.L.D.” This is the first time that he claims to have translated a Sanskrit text. But how could he translate a Sanskrit text? When did he learn Sanskrit? We skip also that “F.” and the “L.L.D.”. But we are unable to skip over a riddle presented here. In 1849 Dr. Max Müller published the Volume I of Rig-VedaSanhita. The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans, we remember. He had also claimed to have compiled the only real and complete version of Rig Veda in

Sanskrit letters. We have presented this Volume I having texts in Sanskrit letters of more than one thousand pages in our Chapter Sixteen. In 1869 F. Max Müller, M.A., L.L.D. confronts us with the same Volume I of Rig-Veda-Sanhita. The Sacred Hymns of the Brahmans. This time he claims to have “Translated and Explained” the same in the English language. The riddle that we are unable to solve is that this new Volume I in English consists less than three hundred pages, all inclusive, in the normal printing format. As not scholarly persons we must ask: How is it possible to translate and explain more than one thousand pages

of Rig Veda in Sanskrit letters in less than three hundred pages in English? We cannot search for an answer. The scholars of the prevalent culture have not raised this question yet. No questions, no answers. We take liberty to quote a few sentences from the PREFACE of this wonder-some “translation with explanations”. It begins (highlighted by us): “When some 20 years ago I decided on undertaking the first edition of the two texts and the commentary of the Rig-veda, I little expected that it would fall to my lot to publish also what may, without presumption, be called the first translation of the

ancient sacred hymns of the Brahmans. Such is the charm of deciphering step by step the dark and helpless utterances of the early poets of India, and discovering from time to time behind words that for years seemed unintelligible, the simple though strange expressions of primitive thought and primitive faith, that it required no small amount of self-denial to decide in favour of devoting a life to the publishing of materials rather than to the drawing of the results which those materials supply to the student of ancient language and ancient religion. ...”

It continues in the same audacious primitiveness, a primitiveness that can hardly be topped. The hard fact however remains. In spite of this primitiveness the later born scholars of this culture have raised this notorious swindler to one of their demigods. In this context we must mention that in 1869 F. Max Müller, M.A., L.L.D. does not know even that Rig Veda is not written in the Sanskrit language. We try to imagine what would happen if we just claimed to have understood Persian books on philosophy with a clumsy knowledge of Arabic, only because in written mode the letters and characters are similar in both languages?

We remember Theodor Benfey (18091881) in connection with Alexander Hamilton. He was the first in the “blond-blue-eyed-white-Christian culture” to discover that with the then available knowledge of the Sanskrit language, the Vedic texts could not be understood though the letters and characters were the same. He was to elaborate this difference in his "introduction to the grammar of the Vedic language" in 1874 for the first time in Europe. This news reached also Max Müller. From 1878 onwards he also was to acknowledge the difference between the Sanskrit and the Vedic language. But Max Müller’s “translations” of the Vedic texts have

remained unaltered up to this day. ***** We come to Max Müller in the years after he was installed as the first Professor of “Comparative Philology” at Oxford University in 1868. As just mentioned he confronts us with the Volume I of Rig-Veda-Sanhita in his translation and explanations in 1869. Thereafter he starts massive canvassing for himself as an all-round scholar. He begins writing letters to many celebrities belonging to all walks of life in Europe, if we trust Georgina Max Müller and that these published letters are not fakes. We do not oversee that she published letters written to celebrities after her

husband and most of those celebrities had expired. Two other aspects are even more striking. Georgina Max Müller’s collection does not include replies to those letters. These replies were definitely kept by Max Müller. Where are they? In case of their absence we must assume that those letters of Max Müller remained either unanswered, or the letters presented by Georgina Max Müller are fakes. We let it be with our simple-minded conclusion. The second aspect is puzzling us much more. It has two legs. How could Georgina Max Müller know to whom

Max Müller had written even before their marriage? And how could she find these letters written by Max Müller? We read in the Preface to The life & letters of Max Muller “that much valuable correspondence has been destroyed.” Then she thanks “to the many known and unknown in all quarters of the globe who responded to my petition”. But how could she address her petition “to the many known and unknown in all quarters of the globe who responded ?” We let it be with our simple-minded questions. There are no answers. We have read those letters. The content of those letters are not of such qualities that celebrities would have kept them in

their archives. Most of them were obvious self-canvassing of a sick mind. Yet, we shall have to deal with a few of these letters in a little while. We discussed earlier our arriving to the conclusion that the term “Philology” is a package of deception. Behind “Philology” is nothing else than learning languages proficiently. Learning a language is not a “science-basedexercise”. One has to learn by heart, vocabulary and grammar. “Comparative Philology” is a larger package of deception, introduced by Franz Bopp. We know his academic epub. We must not repeat that here. Max Müller goes still further. He translates the German

term “Sprachwissenschaft” coined by Franz Bopp into English as “Science of Languages” and propagates this as an achievement. Analogue to this he coins the subject “Science of Religions”. And he gets through with these deceptive packages in the academic circles in Europe. But he remains unhappy that his professorship of “Comparative Philology” did not include the Sanskrit language as well. ***** In 1875 Oxford University specially honours the second Boden Professor for Sanskrit, Monier Monier-Williams, with the “Honorary DCL title” for nothing in particular; Max Müller is unable to take

it anymore. He has now just passed his 51 in age. Georgina Max Müller presented a long letter of Max Müller addressed to Dean Stanley dated May 13, 1875 after their return from a travel in Italy (p. 487/488). His technique of writing has remained the same. He starts with general topics (highlighted by us): “Our happy flight to Italy is over. I am decidedly better, and a good dose of quiet home-life will soon set me up, I hope. ... We also met the Count and Countess of Lingen (Crown Prince and Princess) at Florence, working hard from morning till night—a perfect pair of noble creatures. They spoke much of you. ...(A long report of

their experiences and meetings follows.)’ I was quite overwhelmed with the reception they gave me in the different Universities—banquets, deputations, presents from the students —only I was not up to any efforts of speech-making and eating and drinking, and had to promise to come again. I think one might exchange Oxford for Florence; it combines all the charms of Italy with the bracing air of England. Anyhow, as soon as I can, I shall go there again. I wanted to ask your advice. At the time of the extinction of the East India Company, the Queen accepted

the dedication of my edition of the Rig-veda. The work is now finished, and I should like to present the last volume to the Queen. It is the work of a whole life, at least of thirty years, and I doubt whether there is much life left for hard work now. Whom should I apply to ? I have a great dislike to Chamberlains et hoc genus omne, and yet I should likethe Queen to know that I have now fulfilled the task which brought me to England in 1846! On my return to England I found a letter that Lord Salisbury had proposed that a further grant should be paid to me in recognition of my services in editing the Rig-veda. I had no right to expect anything of the

kind, and I was very much pleased, particularly as it came from him.' I have many things I want to talk about with you; when shall we meet?” Dean Stanley was Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (1815 –1881), an English churchman. He was elected in 1839 as a Fellow of University College at Oxford, and in the same year took holy orders. Towards the close of 1863 Arthur Penrhyn Stanley was appointed by the Crown to the newly vacated deanery at Westminster. Georgina Max Müller did not disclose anything about this meeting. Did it take place? We find another letter to Dean Stanley dated August 23, 1875 presented by

Georgina Max Müller (p. 492/493) and highlighted by us: “I am printing at present a volume of essays which is to form the fourth and concluding volume of my Chips from a German Workshop. The first was dedicated to Bunsen, the second to Bernays of Bonn, the third to Palgrave, and now I come to ask you whether you would allow me to inscribe your name on the last. It contains chiefly essays on the Science of Language, and also the Westminster Lecture, and with it your Sermon, and a postscript which I should like you to look at before it is struck off. You have been to me

during my stay in England semper idem, and I know how much I owe you for many kind words spoken to me and of me. You trusted me even when I did not act as you wished, and you made allowance for the difficulties which a foreigner has in always recognizing the right line of action. But it is not only as a tribute of personal friendship that I ask you to accept the dedication of my book, but as a token of my sincere and warmest admiration for the noble fight you have been fighting all your life, through good and evil report, giving heart to others to follow, and securing to your country, after a thirty years' war, an amount of

freedom of thought, and with it and through it, of sincerity of faith, such as no one could have dreamt of when I first came to Oxford in 1848. I think my time in England is nearly up. I doubt whether I ought to stay longer. I am only tolerated at Oxford, allowed to help when I am wanted, but never helped myself when I want help. If I had worked in Germany as I have worked for twenty-five years in England, my position would be very different. Here I am nobody in the University ; and when I see how I am treated, I really feel sometimes ashamed of myself, not for my own, but for my wife's sake. However, it is my own fault. I would not give up a

plan of life which I had made before I knew what life was. In order to carry out my edition of the Rig-veda, I had to expatriate myself—it was the only way of getting the work done. But now it is done, and the question is whether I can still be of use in my own country. I sometimes doubt it, but I think I ought to try. How different you must feel after having worked for your country as you have, and seeing the results of your work, and feeling certain of the gratitude of so many for whom you have spent your life.” Max Müller’s despair increases. He writes again to Dean Stanley on

November 6, 1875 (highlighted by us): “I send you a copy of my preface to Kingsley's Roman and Teuton, with some alterations here and there. I wish I could have seen you and had a quiet talk with you, before deciding on a step which, as you know, I have long contemplated. I hope I have decided rightly, though it was no easy matter to weigh everything. I have now served the University for exactly twenty-five years, and I have at last succeeded in gaining for the new Science of Languagea recognized position among the subjects required or allowed in the examinations, and in leaving behind me a number of

pupils, any of whom could fill my Chair with credit. As long as the University seemed to approve and appreciate my work, I was willing to stay and work on ; and, for the sake of my wife and her friends, I gave up the Professorship offered me at Strassburg, which from a pecuniary point of view was as good as the one I hold here. I mean to go next April, and settle at first at Dresden. I shall have to work hard, as for some time I shall probably be without any official income. But even my wife agrees that I am right, and that I could not stay longer. ...” We read in Georgina Max Müller (p.

499): “On December 1, Max Müller sent his resignation to the ViceChancellor, the Warden of New College; writing also to his own Warden at All Souls to officially announce his determination, as the resignation of his Professorship entailed the loss of his Fellowship. He writes at this time to Dean Stanley: ' I am very tired myself, and hardly able to do anything. It has been a hard struggle, and I only hope I have decided right.'” Max Müller is now 52 years old. On December 13, 1875 he writes a very long letter “To H.R.H. The Duke of Albany”. He is Leopold George

Duncan Albert, the eighth child and the fourth son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was then 22 years old. We reproduce parts of that letter, yet these parts are also long. We did not want to make a summary of the letter only. It is being highlighted by us and we refrain from additional comments: “Sir,— I was able to say so very little when your Royal Highness gave me that beautiful souvenir, that I must try whether I cannot express my gratitude in better words. The happy hours which I have been allowed to spend with your Royal Highness will always remain among my most

cherished recollections of dear old Oxford. ...I believe few people could have watched your career at Oxford with deeper interest, and felt for you, both in health and sickness, a truer sympathy than I have. ...What I hope and wish for you is an active and useful career, and, before all, that physical strength which alone is wanting to enable you to make that excellent and unselfish use of your high position and talents ... . The last weeks, when I had finally to decide on my leaving Oxford, have been full of trouble and sorrow to me, and I cannot thank your Royal Highness enough for the unexpected

token of your kind feelings towards me : it was like a bright and warm ray of light on a dreary day. No one knows how fond I am of Oxford, and what a sacrifice I make in leaving it and leaving England. But the life of a scholar has its duties, and I must not shrink from them. As Professor I have no sphere of usefulness here. ... As long as the edition of the Veda kept me here, I had an excuse for staying at Oxford, though I felt often depressed when I saw how I had to fritter away my time in trying to serve two masters, Sanskrit and the Science of Language. But now, when the edition of the Veda

is finished, and even the Chips gathered up, my desire to continue my translation of the Veda and to work out some of the results to which my study of the sacred writings of the ancient world had led me, became stronger and stronger. Yet I felt that I could no longer work as I had done hitherto, and if I had continued to discharge my duties as Professor of Comparative Philology, I should have had to surrender my Sanskrit studies altogether. Were I Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, nothing would have drawn me away from this, in many respects, delightful place ; but, in order to concentrate my powers, and to do

something at least before it is too late, I see no choice but to give up my pleasant position here, and retire to some quiet town in Germany. ... The dark cloud has been hanging over my head for the last fifteen years, and as a man who stands under a waterfall is little disturbed by a few rain-drops, the pudendae iniuriolae were nothing compared to the weighty considerations which determined my course. A rumour (and Oxford is famous for its Common-roomers) says that I have accepted a lucrative position in Germany. It is simply untrue. A lucrative position was offered me in

Germany, and I declined it. No one seems able to see that science, too, has its duties, or to believe that a scholar can make a sacrifice for the sake of his work. Now, I believe that the Veda is an extremely important book, in fact the only book in Indian literature which is important, not only for India, but for the early history of the whole Aryan race, including Greeks, Romans, and ourselves. It contains the first attempts at expressing religious thought and feeling, and it alone can help us to solve many of the most critical problems in the Science of Religion. The Science of Religion is, in fact, the history of all religions,

and when I saw, as quite a young man, the gap in our materials for studying the origin and growth of religious ideas, because no one knew then or could know what the Veda was, I determined to devote my life to collecting all the manuscripts that could still be found, and thus to rescue the oldest book of our race from that destruction which would have been inevitable, unless it had been printed. This has now been done. ... If I stayed at Oxford as Professor of Comparative Philology, I could not hope to finish even my translation of the Veda, much less to work out at

least a few of the results of thirty years' study. That is why I leave Oxford to settle in some quiet town in Germany, and there to devote myself to the education of my children and to my Sanskrit studies. My friends think me Quixotic, even reckless. I cannot help it. All I can say is, and I know your Royal highness will agree with me. Life is precious, and we must try to make the best use of it we can. I have been proud for years to call myself, while living and working in England, a loyal subject of Her Majesty the Queen. I hope I shall be so still, even when living and working in Germany. While in England I have

tried to make my English friends understand and appreciate all that is good and noble in the German character; when in Germany I shall try to make my German friends understand and appreciate what is good and noble in the English character. I have sometimes succeeded in England—I hope I may succeed in Germany, for the estrangement between England and Germany is deplorable, and fraught, I fear, with serious danger. Again thanking your Royal Highness for the many proofs of your kindness, I have the honour to remain, with

sincere gratitude, Your Royal Highness's most faithful servant, F. Max Muller.” We know nothing on reactions of “H.R.H. The Duke of Albany”, nor of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the Dean of Westminster. We know only, three months later Max Müller withdraws his resignation. Oxford and England can keep him. He is permitted to translate numerous Sanskrit texts and to bless the world with 51 volumes under the title: Sacred Books of the East. All written in English. And he gives the world plenty of “Science of Language”, “Science of Religion” and lots of Orient and India remaining as the Oxford Professor for

“Comparative Philology” only. “H.R.H. The Duke of Albany”, Leopold George Duncan Albert expired at the age of thirty. ***** Monier Monier-Williams, the second Boden Professor for Sanskrit at Oxford University is knighted in 1876. We do not know how Max Müller took it. So far we have avoided taking aids from secondary sources for our search. At this point we make an exception. We read in the most celebrated biography of Max Müller, written by Nirad C. Chaudhuri in 1974. Looking a little ahead we take liberty to mention that we shall have to

deal later with this author of this biography as well. This Nirad C. Chaudhuri quotes from a letter of Max Müller to Georgina Max Müller, in the style of Georgina Max Müller, mentioning only the year 1883 on the pages 365/366 of that biography the following lines: “There was a time when I should have liked to have been made Sir Frederick and you Lady Max Mueller. Dear Stanley wrote to me years ago that a baronetcy or a life peerage would be the right thing – however, we do very well without, and want nothing more from the world.’”

We have not found this letter in the volumes published by Georgina Max Müller. As Nirad C. Chaudhuri was approved by Oxford University, we assume that this letter should exist somewhere. It may also be a fake. The content is interesting. However Max Müller fulfilled the missions of Thomas Babington Macaulay thoroughly. He covered the ground with a flood of printed matters on “Indology” and on ancient “India”. It is not relevant to know the number of “Pandits” or “Theodor Aufrechts” who contributed to fulfil his missions. The flood of printed matters was financed by the British Kingdom. The British

educational system in “India” and these Christianised re-writings have created immense hurdles to shed off the distortions of the history of Bharatvarsa, distortions of the ancient literature on science and philosophy of this land. The new class created by Thomas Babington Macaulay does not find a way to their roots. And there is almost no way for anybody to reach the real ground. These Christianised re-writings in the English language and the yet sustaining education-system created by the Britons are massive paramount walls to be surmounted. In this context we are reminded Rishi Kumar Mishra’s book: Before the

BEGINNING and after the END. Beyond

the universe of physics. Rediscovering ancient insights. We take liberty to repeat what we read in his book on page 451 ff: “British and other European ‘scholars’ have subjected the Vedas to sustained and widespread distortion over the past 200 years, ... these ‘scholars’ misinterpreted the subjects dealt with in this most ancient record of the intellectual attainments of humankind. Their translations of the Veda Mantras, for example, are a scandal of monumental proportions.

In consequence, India has suffered enormously. But the damage has affected more than just India, for as one layer of ignorance settled over another and this thick fog of distortion became covered with several coats of confusion, all of humanity was deprived of the rich knowledge contained in these texts. ... The distortions were a result of two clearly discernible motives: first, to serve the interests of British colonialism; and second, to lend support to the proselytising activities of Christian missionaries. ... the British had launched a perfidious

project of ‘mind-management’ in India. Thomas Babington Macaulay was the author of this project. The destruction of the Indian education system and its replacement with English education system were critical elements of his plans. ... The East India Company found an extremely effective agent in Max Müller. It offered to fund him to the tune of one lakh of rupees (100,000) equivalent to approximately 10,000 pounds sterling – an enormous sum in those days – if he could undertake a translation of the Rig Veda in such

a manner that it would destroy the Hindus’ belief in the Vedic religion.” We feel, we must recall also Max Müller’s confession: “One confession I have to make, and one for which I can hardly hope for absolution, whether from my friends or from my enemies. I have never done anything; I have never been a doer, a canvasser, a wirepuller, a manager, in the ordinary sense of these words.” We close the chapter with an episode we read in Max Müller’s Auld Lang Syne – second series on page 47–48:

“While I was sitting in my room at Oxford copying Sanskrit MSS., a gentleman was shown in, dressed a long black coat, looking different from my usual visitors, and addressing me in a language of which I did not understand a single word. I spoke to him in English, and asked him what language he was speaking, and replied with great surprise, ‘Do you not understand Sanskrit?’ ‘No’, I said, ‘I have never heard it spoken, but here are some MSS. of the Veda which will interest you.’ He was delighted to see them, and began to read, but he had soon to confess that he was not able to translate a single word. When I expressed my surprise –

though perhaps I ought not to have done so – he told me that he did not believe in the Veda any longer, but had become a Christian. His countenance was most intelligent, and almost heavy with thought, his language and his manners most winning, and we were soon deep in the conversation. His name had been Nîlakantha Goreh – Nîlakantha being a name of Siva (the blue neck) – but had been changed into Nehemiah Goreh, when he became a Christian.”

CHAPTER 20

DIRTY MORASS ALL-ENCOMPASSING The prevailing Era of Vasco da Gama is marked with war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, mercenary, occupant’s-children, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands. Ruling European Christian Kingdoms and the European Christian Churches are directly accountable for committing these crimes. These ruling Kingdoms and Churches have unscrupulously sacrificed lives and resources of their own people as well to enrich themselves. Many efforts have been

made to cover these undeniable crimes creating numerous new labels. None the less, the fact remains established that these forays in the Era of Vasco da Gama are planned, financed and executed by the then ruling Kingdoms or some other ruling-labels attributed to Kingdom, and are fully sanctioned by the then ruling Christian Churches. The methods of implementation of these crimes are designed and justified by the “universities”. These three instances, ruling Kingdoms, Christian Churches and “universities", are responsible for the emergence of the Era of Vasco da Gama. These three instances are

accountable for the continuation of the Era of Vasco da Gama as well. It is secondary whether war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands are carried out behind the mask of enlightening the “souls” of the heathens or by the instrument of brain-washing, i.e., by capturing the minds. The hard fact is that in the Era of Vasco da Gama a section of the people in occupied areas are converted to “courtesans” and to “Intellectual prostitutes” serving primarily foreign interests. We have dealt with the British Kingdom in “India” as a typical case, the exemplary case of occupation of foreign

lands. We have more intensively focused on one of the three responsible instances, on the “universities” as cadre training units and on their major actors. We began our search and re-search with one of the demigods, with Max Müller M.A. as an example, but we have not neglected the other demigods, the other major actors prior to him, his contemporaries and a few examples of his successors too. We must not explicate in details that our findings are based on primary documents only. We sum up our findings regarding the demigods and major actors of this era ascertaining that all of them are swindlers, with one exception: Filippo

Sassetti (1540 – 1588) is to great extent honest. We know Filippo Sassetti from our previous chapters. He was an outstanding academician in Florence. Yet he represented European trade companies in Portuguese India. He is the only one who does not deliberately distort his observations and does not swindle. But his writings were deliberately distorted by the forthcoming European “scholars”, produced in the cadre training units called “universities”, three centuries later, placing him in the celebrated gallery of “Indologists” during the nineteenth century, though he never claimed to have learnt the Sanskrit language or to be an “Indologist”.

None of the European Christian “scholars” had learnt the Sanskrit language and yet they claimed to have “translated” highly sophisticated literature from the original Sanskrit language. Until 1874 these “scholars” did not know even that the Vedic texts were written in the Vedic language, which was quite different than the Sanskrit language. Only the characters of the written mode for both of these languages were Devanagari type. The Vedic language has 97 characters; the Sanskrit language has 63 characters. None the less, all those “translations” of the Vedic texts have remained unaltered up to this day.

The purpose of these “translations” of the Vedic and Sanskrit texts was precisely articulated a little later by Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 – 1859). The purpose was to Christianise ancient wisdom of Bharatavarsa. Whoever seeks entry to the knowledge and wisdom stored in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and other texts, he is confronted by many paramount walls, by thousands of printed products, all in European languages, all edited by European Christians up to this day. And enough “intellectual prostitutes” are produced who are able to serve in European Christian style only.

These printed products do not carry the knowledge and wisdom stored in the Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras, Brahmanas and other texts. These have been deliberately faked. This is universally so. These thousands of printed products are not even worth the price of the papers for anyone who genuinely seeks entry to the knowledge and wisdom stored in those ancient texts. These thousands of printed products shelved in the established libraries are fit to be banned into “bad libraries” only. The inhuman Era of Vasco da Gama will come to an end like all Eras in the history. All entities emerging at a

certain period and do end after a while. “Modern scholars” will not break this law of nature. How long this “while” of the Era of Vasco da Gama will be, depends on us. We must uncover the truth from the heavy load of allencompassing and comprehensive factitiousness of this Era. We must shovel away the dirt put on the truths, layer after layers. As simple-minded straightforward and truth-searching persons we know that this duty of uncovering is “labour of Hercules”. But there is no alternative to it. We must succeed cleaning the university libraries in the interest of future humanistic generations by creating “bad libraries”.

We can assume that the “labour of Hercules” in this area will mean to set an all-encompassing conflagration. We know that none of us is a “Hercules”. But we have learnt through ages that there will be no conflagration without a fire and there will be no fire without sparks. We know also that not each and every spark lit a fire. For us we find no alternative to emitting as many sparks as possible and we are certain that at least one spark would light a fire that will lead to conflagration. We shall never plead for burning the existing jungle of those rotten books. But, to begin with, we definitely plead for sorting out those books based on a simple and straight forward formula:

Sort out all books based on secondary sources only and put them in “bad libraries”. This simple exercise would convert the jungle in the university libraries into a readily manageable park. We apologise for quoting “The Man Who Came to Dinner”, John Swinton, again in this context. He was the doyen of the New York press corps and made the following speech at the Dinner celebrating his retirement: “There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that

it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my papers, before twenty four hours, my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this

toasting of an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.” We need many “John Swintons”. Once we realise that we have to uncover the truth from the heavy load of allencompassing and comprehensive factitiousness of this Era of Vasco da Gama, there would be enough sparks to uncover the truth. ***** We get back or rather enter into the post-“Max Müller M.A.” realities. We

come across a book under the title “The Essential Max Müller”, published in the “USA” in 2002. It is a reader on Language, Mythology, and Religion, edited by Jon R. Stone. Jon R. Stone is Professor of Philosophy & Religious Studies at California University. He has authored many books. This reader, “The Essential Max Müller”, is designed to teach under-graduate students at Colleges and at Universities. Jon R. Stone propagates: “Max Müller is often referred to as the “father of Religious Studies,” having himself coined the term "science of religion" (or Religionswissenschaft) in 1873. …

Though a German-born and Germaneducated philologist, he spent the greater part of his career at Oxford, becoming one of the most famous of the Victorian arm-chair scholars. Müller wrote extensively on Indian philosophy and Vedic religion, translated major sections of the Vedas, the Upanisads, and all of the Dhammapada, yet never visited India. …” We refrain from commenting the inaccuracies even within these few lines, but we would like to narrate on our encounter with him that reveals the shallow and muddy water in which professors like him at universities

operate. Jon R. Stone gets upset being requested to mention the sources for two of his own statements in that reader: "By September 1843, at age nineteen, Max Muller completed his doctoral dissertation, an examination of Book Three ( Re Affectibus) of Spinoza's Ethica, a surprising research topic given Muller's remarkable aptitude for classical and Oriental languages..." on page 10. And “After completing his doctorate, Max Muller decided to remain at Leipzig to continue his studies in philosophy and sanskrit. He stayed in Leipzig until early 1844, when he decided to travel to Berlin to hear Franz

Bopp..." on page 11. We reproduce his original words: “Two of my main sources were Max Müller's "Autobiography" (1901) and Nirad Chauduri's biography, "Scholar Extraordinaire" (1974). Both of these, and many others are cited in the book. Page 10: the main source for this comment is cited in footnote 8, page 18. The source is Johannes Voigt (1967), p. 3. Page 11: the main source for this comment is cited in the text itself as Müller's Autobiography (p.157, but

the larger context for this comment is drawn from pp. 157-158). There is the indication of a gap between the time Müller completed his doctorate (Sept. 1843) and when he departed for Berlin (April 1844) in Chaudhuri, pp. 41-43. There is also mention of Müller's translation of the Hitopadesa taking place before he traveled to Berlin.” His inadequate reply leads to further questions. To cut a long story short: This exercise reveals that the whole reader is based only on secondary sources. The same usual procedure, “copy and paste” practiced in the new “sciencedisciplines” that emerged during the Era

of Vasco da Gama. In the pages 157158 in “Müller's Autobiography” there is no mention of Jon R. Stone’s assertion. Obviously he did not look into the “My Autobiography”by Max Müller. Unfortunately for him, there is no mention at all of any “doctoral dissertation” in Max Müller’s “My Autobiography”. This is the malice of the method of “copy and paste” from secondary sources. He is absolutely unable to disclose the criteria he applied for selecting a few from the whole lot of secondary sources. The selection is thus arbitrary. Jon R. Stone’s reply is revealing (highlighted by us):

“My apologies, but I do not own a copy of Müller's Autobiography. … Regarding Chaudhuri's biography: it is the only one that exists that was researched and written in such detail. Chaudhuri had access to materials from Oxford, I did not. Thus, it was not my intention to challenge its validity but to use it to construct a brief but useful intellectual biography of Müller's life. My own research was undertaken between 2000 and 2002. All the sources that I used are listed in the Bibliography. I found Trompf and Voigt to be helpful in filling in some of the gaps.” Even after he is caught in the malice of

the method of “copy and paste” from secondary sources, Jon R. Stone does not hesitate to use a phrase like “My own research was undertaken between 2000 and 2002”. As already announced, we shall deal with “the only one that exists that was researched” biography of Max Müller by “Nirad Chaudhuri” in a while. We were unable to let Jon R. Stone an easy exit. We enquire further. Did he care to know who his “Nirad Chaudhuri” was, why and how he was chosen for this biography-project and who financed him? As regard to other sources we enquire about his way to decide over the solidity and genuineness of each secondary source. We inform

him also about our becoming apprehensive seeing the general practice in the “Humanities” trusting blindly in whatever that has once been printed. We skip his rather helpless excuses and his benevolent references for us to some other secondary sources. We do let him exit only after his following confessions (highlighted by us): “In the case of Müller, I was not as interested in his biography (or academic pedigree) as I was in what he himself was trying to say in his own essays and addresses. The biographical and autobiographical material that I used for my book's Introduction were from the standard

sources. Because I did not have access to the archives at Leipzig U. or at Oxford U., it was therefore necessary for me to trust that his biographers had done their job carefully and correctly. If you do find errors in Chaudhuri or van den Bosch, then that is well worth writing about. I would encourage you to pursue your suspicions. For my part, I am content to leave that pursuit to you and to other keen scholars.” ***** That is it. We did not waste more time enquiring from whether Jon R. Stone

ever heard about swindles and mistakes in “the standard sources.” We are not surprised noting his self-pleasing and self-satisfying choice of words and diction even when he knew that he was caught. What is it, “standard source”? Does he not sell the reader he published to his students as a standard source? Why was it “therefore necessary for me to trust that his biographers had done their job carefully and correctly”? Obviously Jon R. Stone was trained “to trust”. Was he trained in a Christian University? Are there Christian Universities? We do not know. Anyway, Jon R. Stone is “I am content”.

University-educated prostitutes like Jon R. Stone only care for their own career. They do not learn to reflect on their own doings. They do whatever is demanded. They do not ask the most obvious question: how the demands are defined and justified? They do not ask even whether they are adequately paid for their services to their clients. They take whatever they can get. There are too many “intellectual prostitutes” on the roads. They just drift in the main-stream. They give a damn for truth or knowledge. Wherever we dig, we fall in identical dirty morass. We cite another example. We come across a rather strange but

noteworthy “institution” called “Gifford Lectures” that started in 1888 with lectures of Max Müller on his “science of Religion” at Glasgow University. Jacques Martin Barzun (1907 –2012), a French-born American historian of ideas and culture, is cited saying: “the Gifford Lectures (are) virtuoso performances and ‘the highest honor in a philosopher's career’." Jacques Martin Barzun has published many books, also the best-seller “From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life, 1500 to the Present” in 2000. Did he deal with the Era of Vasco da Gama in his bestselling book?

The “USA”-President George W. Bush honoured him in 2003 with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the “USA”-President Barack Obama honoured him in 2010 with the National Humanities Medal. We let him an exit with his quote in 1937 when he was 30 years old (highlighted by us): “Among the words that can be all things to all men, the word "race" has a fair claim to being the most common, most ambiguous and most explosive. No one today would deny that it is one of the great catchwords about which ink and blood are spilled in reckless quantities. Yet no agreement seems to exist about what race means.”

The same Jacques Martin Barzun is quoted qualifying the “Gifford Lectures” as ‘the highest honor in a philosopher's career’. The “Gifford Lectures” deal with religion, science and philosophy in our days as well. It set out on the basis of a donation of £80,000 by Adam Lord Gifford for Scottish Universities in 1885 and began in 1888, as mentioned, with lectures of Max Müller on his “science of Religion”. We shall have to deal with the year 1888 separately, in a little while. We are naturally reminded not only of the Boden Chair for Sanskrit at Oxford University. Presently we deal with Adam Lord Gifford and with his donation of £80,000.

Adam Gifford (1820-1887) was born in Edinburgh in a relatively humble family. But his father was a “zealous Sundayschool teacher”. He apprenticed to his uncle, a solicitor in Edinburgh, when he was 15 years old. Then he studied law, was called to the bar as advocate in 1849, appointed an “advocate-depute” in 1861, a judge in 1870. Why and how he was knighted to a Lord in the same year, we do not know. He resigned as judge in 1881 suffering from paralysis. In the home pages of “Gifford Lectures” we find his will. He must have left as legacy of almost a quarter-million pounds. We wonder how he earned a fortune being a judge. We must not get deep into that also.

We must also not enter into the long list of celebrities of “Gifford Lecturers” who have helped to cover the ground of truth with their publicised lectures. Since 1987 “Gifford Lectures” are being managed by The John Templeton Foundation established by the renowned international investor Sir John Templeton. We are remembered of those implemented grand plans of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The John Templeton Foundation’s purpose is “to stimulate a high standard of excellence in scholarly understanding that can serve to encourage further worldwide explorations of the moral and spiritual

dimensions of the Universe and of the human potential within its ultimate purpose. ... Through its programs, the Foundation seeks to encourage the world to catch the vision of the tremendous possibilities for spiritual progress in an open and humble approach to life. Through the Laws of Life Essay Contest, it reaches students and communities worldwide. The Foundation supports free enterprise education and development internationally through the Templeton Freedom Awards, new curriculum offerings and other programs that encourage free-market principles.” We are of course reminded of the first

factory of brainwashing by Sir William Jones in Kolkata. We are on the verge quitting The John Templeton Foundation, but not “Foundations” in general. What is the function of a foundation in this prevailing culture? Why do rich people create foundations? How do rich people come to riches? Do they create foundations with taxed income? Do they give account on the sources of their income? Are the foundations anything else than booking and hiring “intellectual prostitutes” propagating missions of the donors? We shall keep our eyes wide open. The John Templeton Foundation is naturally equipped with its own press to

make free propaganda for “free enterprise”. When it goes online in 2004/2005, two Glasgow University professors David Jasper and Alexander Broadie are booked to serve The John Templeton Foundation. They personally do not serve actually. They employ their doctoral students Sarah Abraham, and Brannon Hancock for the actual service writing a short biography of Max Müller. In this short biography we find the sentence: "He was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1843, at the age of 19, for his dissertation, ‘On the Third Book of Spinoza’s Ethics, De Affectibus.’“ Brannon Hancock is requested to

disclose the source in 2010. We had challenged the validity of this sentence. His reply is: “The research that went into this short bio and lecture summary was primarily drawn from the text of the Gifford Lectures themselves; other biographical data was drawn from secondary sources, such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography” Sarah Abraham and Brannon Hancock did not even think consulting the more reputed sources like 'Encyclopaedia Britannica'. For two reasons they felt safe. “…indeed, there was a severallayered vetting process for all that went on the site (we submitted our

work to Glasgow University professors David Jasper and Alexander Broadie, who reviewed it and passed it along to editors at the Templeton Foundation, who funded the Gifford online database project).” And secondly, they had found this sentence in the introductory “Gifford Lectures” delivered by Max Müller “before the University of Glasgow” on "Natural Theology: Lecture I" in 1888, on p. 17 of the English 2nd edition published by Longmans, Green & Co, 1892 in London. Yes, this is the same publishing house that published also Max Müller’s Auld Lang Syne (1898), My Autobiography:

A Fragment (1901) and The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller (1902, 2 vols.) by his wife Georgina Max Müller. Brannon Hancock takes an excellent exit in two steps: “Let me say as well that if your interest and research on this particular question exposes some inaccuracy (which is entirely within the realm of possibility), please let me know so that I may contact the administrators of the Gifford website where the bio I co-wrote is posted and provide a correction.” And then:

“Dig as far as you want into this; seems like a worthy line of inquiry to me. I don't know why a degree from Leipzig would have been overlooked if Muller did in fact receive one; and yet, I don't know why he would mention it himself in his Gifford lectures if it were not the case (or indeed, if this was an inaccuracy that Muller stated in a public and then published lecture series, why no one would have cried "foul!" before now). So by all means, pursue the matter and let me know what you discover.” Two and a half years later we get back to him. We mention our findings that writers on Max Müller have rather

conveniently made use of secondary sources, never checked the validity of any source and thus have knowingly/unknowingly spread many falsehoods regarding him. Then we narrate our encounter with Jon R. Stone and request him “to join in collaboration in this research”. And naturally we remind him his encouraging words: “Dig as far as you want into this; seems like a worthy line of inquiry to me.” His reply comes rather late. In the meantime he has become “Rev. Brannon Hancock PhD, Adjunct Professor, Wesley Seminary, Indiana Wesleyan University. Polite as ever he writes:

“I apologize for my delay in getting back to you. You're catching me admist a busy summer in family and ministry life. I am not familiar with Dr. Stone or his work, and I am sorry you have hit a brick wall with him. I have no desire to cut off the conversation with you, but I am not sure I can be of considerable further help to you beyond the information I've already given you regarding the Gifford project I was involved with and the limited work on Muller that I undertook to that end. “Reviewing our previous emails, I should reiterate that my research was

limited to published editions of Muller's Gifford Lectures and the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. I readily admit that, within the scope of the project, I did not feel compelled to pursue biographical details any further than that. However, if I am guilty of perpetuating faulty information about Muller's life, I would be most grateful for the correction and will take whatever action I can to amend my contribution to the Gifford database with those who administer and maintain that resource, giving due credit where it is due. As I think I explained previously, my work on and interest in Muller really

both began and ended with the Gifford project while I was a graduate student at Glasgow University. My primary fields of interest are in sacramental theology and the history and theology of Christian worship, as well as in interdisciplinary approaches to theology (e.g. theology and film, literature, popular culture, the arts). Not that I mean to be dismissive of Muller's life or work, or the study of it as an important field of inquiry, but it is not something I am going to pursue in the future. However, I still encourage you to uncover whatever you can, and as I said before, if you find errors in what I have written

about Muller, I welcome correction you might offer.”

any

We also review his previous emails. The tune has changed. We ignore his new tune and recall his encouraging sentence: “Dig as far as you want into this; seems like a worthy line of inquiry to me.” Then we confront him with a few of our findings like: Ø Max Müller did never sit for an academic exam. Ø Max Müller never learnt Sanskrit. He did not have an opportunity even to hear the sound of Sanskrit. But he claimed to be a Sanskrit scholar.

Ø Max Müller was a charming blender and swindler. Ø Max Müller’s academic career in Oxford was paved since 1847 by the East India Company. Ø Max Müller’s publications were sponsored by the East India Company. We mention that many authors like him might rather be victims of the prevailing culture of “research”. This culture is based on blind trust on printed matter, all secondary sources included. We sketch our plan to publish a book on bluffs and lies of and on celebrated scholars, exemplified in details by the

life of Max Müller and welcome him as one of the co-editors of the book on August 22, 2012. His reply comes on September 12, 2012 (highlighted by us): “It sounds like you have found some fascinating stuff on Muller. By all means, pursue publishing it and setting the record straight. If it all comes to pass, I will happily get in touch with the Templeton folks that administer the Gifford Lectures website and ask that they allow me to revise Ms. Abraham's and my bio of Muller in light of new research. I appreciate your offer to be involved in the project, but must decline at this time. As I've explained before, my

interest in Muller began and ended with the Gifford project, so I have no interest in pursuing this further myself. The work we did on that project was conducted with due diligence to available sources, including Muller's own work (i.e. autobiography and text of his Gifford lectures, which was the main subject of the work we were doing), so if mistakes were made and myths perpetuated, they were made in good faith and clear conscience. That is to say, I would not be at all embarrassed by or take offense to being "corrected" or criticized by your research - I simply do not wish

to collaborate on it. My interests and priorities have shifted considerably in the 7 years that have passed since I worked on that project, not the least of which is adding 3 children to my life. While I am happy for you that you have found the type of scandal you were looking for, this type of controversy really doesn't appeal to me. Best wishes with your work. I sincerely do not mean this as a dismissal; just as a declination of your offer to pursue this any further on my end.” The “intellectual prostitutes” have always this standard excuse whenever they are caught. They served “in good

faith and clear conscience” to please their clients. What else? This is not the end of the episode. We asked him on September 15, 2012 for an explanation for the sentence: “While I am happy for you that you have found the type of scandal you were looking for, this type of controversy really doesn't appeal to me.” We request him, before he explains, to read our emails, specially the following two sentences in our last email: “I am inclined to put forward the proposition that many authors are rather victims of the prevailing culture of research. This culture is based on blind trust on printed secondary

sources” and enquired: “Can you maintain that I am in search of a scandal?” On September 16, 2012 by return mail Brannon Hancock replies (highlighted by us): “I am sorry my choice to decline your offer distresses you. I can perhaps understand disappointment, but I confess I do not understand why you would be distressed by my decision. Perhaps you can help me understand. I am sorry also if I offended you with my statement - that wasn't my intention. (Perhaps "scandal" was a poor choice of words.) It has always

been my hope and intention for our exchange to be amiable. While I do not share your opinion about the prevailing culture of research, nor about my status as a victim. I do not accept that the work I did on Muller even as cursory in nature as it was in any way evinces "blind trust in secondary sources" - I consulted Muller's own work. I have tried to encourage you in your work on Muller and have provided context and explanation as to the nature of the Gifford lecture archival project. But that is the extent to which I am able to be involved or assist you further. Obviously you are free to put forward

whatever proposal you feel is appropriate. If the evidence you've uncovered corrects alleged mistakes made in good faith, I for one welcome this. I simply do not wish to collaborate or extend my energies further into this area. I hope you will at least respect my decision, and as a fellow researcher, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that as life changes, circumstances and research interests change as well.” ***** Wherever we dig, we fall in identical dirty morass. We cite another example. We come across a publication under the title: Prix Volney Essay Series, Three

Volumes, “Edited by Joan Leopold”, Published and Printed in the Netherlands by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1999. All volumes are bulky and in exclusive and expensive outfit, in price as well. We remember Georgina Max Müller’s report that her later husband Max Müller had earned 1200 Francs in 1849 participating in an essay-competition on oriental languages in French. We remember also that Max Müller neither was proficient in oriental languages, nor in French. We refer to our Chapter Fifteen. The Third Volume of “Prix Volney Essay

Series” is titled: “Contributions to Comparative Indo-European, African and Chinese Linguistics: Max Müller and Steinthal”. This Volume vendors a lot in regard to Max Müller, authored by the Director, Prix Volney Essay Project, Joan Leopold, in 1999. Kluwer Academic Publishers does not exist anymore. Wolters Kluwer Publisher was founded in 1936 that merged in 1987 with Wolters Samson as Wolters Kluwer N.V. and in 2003 the section “Kluwer Academic Publishers” were sold to two private equity funds, which, shortly thereafter, merged with BertelsmannSpringer, to form Springer Science+Business Media. The section

“Wolters Kluwer Education” was sold in 2007 to Bridgepoint Capital and is now “Infinitas Learning”. Each section of this enterprise is a multibillion business. This is how the global-mindmanagement-project operates in the prevailing culture. Culture? The Prix Volney, i.e. The Volney Prize, is awarded to works of philology, so it is said. It is a deceptive package. We skip those 1200 francs. The prize was founded in 1803 by Constantin François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney (1757 – 1820). We skip also the question how his family came to riches. Obviously there was no need for him to acquire academic credentials and he did

not acquire any. When he was 25 years old he travelled to the East, stayed seven months in Egypt and nearly two years in Greater Syria to learn Arabic. After his return he published his Voyage en Egypte et en Syrie in 1787 and Considérations sur la guerre des Turcs et de la Russie in 1788. In 1792 he bought an estate in Corsica and made an attempt to cultivate “colonial produce” whatever that might have been. Between 1795 and 1798 he was in “North America”. In 1803 he decided to build his own memorial. It is also said that he learnt Sanskrit “from the British linguist Alexander Hamilton”.

We recall the primary sources we spread out in our Chapters Five, Seven, Eleven and Fourteen. Thus we know that Constantin François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney was never near Alexander Hamilton to learn anything from him. This claim does not correspond to facts. Did Alexander Hamilton ever claim to be a linguist or anybody else called him a linguist? The term “linguistics” was coined much later. But the “Prix Volney people” in our time just tell stories. Why do they do it? As referred to, François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney created the Prix Volney in 1803, a prize awarded

in a competition of essays on oriental languages, and was originally a gold medal worth of 1,200 francs. In 1820 he died in Paris. Prix Volney is a memorial of François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney. This memorial has not gained nearly that format of “Asiatick Researches” founded by Sir William Jones in Kolkata as the first factory of faking history. François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney is thus a forerunner for “foundations”. Creating a prize does not bring that much of income-tax savings. We must not elaborate here “income-tax savings”, only this much. The costs of infrastructure that enable rich people becoming rich in a society are to be shouldered by people who are not rich.

Prix Volney is actually so insignificant that a complete list of the winner of the prize is not published. But in 1999 three thick volumes of essays are published as “Prix Volney Essay Series”. Kluwer Academic Publishers initiated a project called Prix Volney Essay Project. For what purpose was it done? We are naturally reminded of Thomas Babington Macaulay and his 30-years plan. Cover the ground, erect walls and divert attention away from truths. Joan Leopold was hired as the Director of the project. We shall deal with Joan Leopold in a little while. It is claimed that the Prix Volney Essay Series “analyzes and reproduces, often for the

first time, essays submitted for this most prestigious of linguistic prizes, awarded since 1822 by the Institut de France to recognize work in general and comparative linguistics”. These claims of Joan Leopold are deliberate swindles. Ø Prix Volney was not created after the death of François de Chassebœuf, Comte de Volney. He died in 1820. Ø The “Institut de France” could not “recognize work in general and comparative linguistics” since 1822 as “General Linguistics” or “Comparative Linguistics” were

coined only in 1835. Ø Franz Bopp coined in 1833 “Vergleichende Grammatik” (Comparative Grammar), and then in 1835 “Sprachwissenschaften” (Language Sciences). Years later, the term “Comparative Philology” was coined. Oxford University created a new Professorship of “Comparative Philology” for Max Müller in 1868. Thereafter Max Müller introduced the term “Science of Languages” plagiarizing Franz Bopp’s creation “Sprachwissenschaften”. Ø The term “Linguistics” appeared as

a camouflaging label in the 20th century only. These are hard facts. Two questions have to be raised in this context. Why was this global-mind-managementproject initiated in the years between 1995 and 1999? And: why did the initiators of this global project hire Joan Leopold for spreading lies and to covering the truth? As already indicated, Joan Leopold has authored a biography (more than two hundred pages) of Max Müller. We decline to review this biography as it is not based on authentic sources. She was requested in 2010 to disclose her

sources for her writing: “He (Max Müller) then became a student of philology and philosophy at the University of Leipzig (18411844). With a doctor dissertation on the third book of Spinoza's ethics. Muller received his degree cum laude in philosophy and Oriental philology in 1843 …”. In that volume she refers in a footnote that “Max Muller's doctoral thesis was located by Leipzig librarian.” In these few lines she indicates that she has personally checked her assertions, a) “doctor dissertation” and b) “degree cum laude in philosophy and Oriental

philology in 1843”. She kept her reply vague: “Thank you very much for your compliments on the Prix Volney Essay Series. The information you are asking for is contained in the footnotes to the two sections you cite. They use manuscript material in Germany and England as well as printed sources.” We apologise feeling an urge to smile in the light of her patronising style. On specific query whether she had seen and verified the copy of the dissertation printed or not printed, whether she is in possession of the copy of the same and whether she saw the Seal of the Leipzig University on the copy, she writes: “To the best of my recollection

without looking at the actual notes I took, the information on the thesis is drawn from note 1 up to the word "1970)". There was no thesis found at Oxford or Leipzig. If you do come across this thesis, I would very much appreciate hearing from you about it.” So, Joan Leopold took “the information on the thesis is drawn from note 1 up to the word "1970)" in her book. We read in that note: "F.Max muller, the Life and letters of the Right Honourable Friendrich Max Muller, ed. By Georgina Adelaide Muller (2 vols. Overseas ed. London-New YorkBombay; Longmans, Green and Co.,

1903), I,20. His dissertation was entitled "Spinoza de affectibus doctrina, tertia Ethices parte proposita." Procancellariatis- Buch der Philos. Fakultat, 6 September 1843, p.152, No. 6; card file of dissertation titles. ( My thanks are due to the university archivist, Ms. Drucker, for assistance in locating this information in 1970)" This might have appeared to the editor of the publishing house serious and verified enough, if he cared at all. On our further digging Joan Leopold writes: “Excuse me for the delay in getting back to you, but I am rather busy. The information in the Pro-

Chancellor's book at Leipzig showed the degree was received by MM. The information from Frau Drucker was the title of his thesis listed, I believe, on an index card. In general German Ph.D. students at that time were taking their first degree and were not required to do examinations but to do a thesis. Sometimes they had their thesis published, sometimes not. There could be an oral examination on the thesis subject, but I do not know whether this was held for MM.” The last part of information is not wrong. It is deliberately faked. When Friedrich Maximilian Müller studied at the Leipzig University from SS 1841 –

SS 1843 the following state of affairs and stipulations were valid there. “Leipzig University runs then four faculties: Theology, Law, Medicine and ‘Artisten’ (Philosophy). The faculty of ‘Artisten’ includes the following subjects: Mathematics and Natural sciences, Philology and Philosophy. In all subjects one can make his Bachelor, Master, and Doctorate. One has to go through a special examination called ‘Habilitation’ to become a University teacher. This stipulation is basically valid also in the present German Educational System in all German universities as ever.

Before one can acquire his ‘Magister artium’ one has to complete at least six semesters passing through a tightly stipulated study-plan and has to complete his 21 years of age. Before one is permitted to the examinational formalities of ‘Magister artium’ one must have acquired his first academic degree of ‘Baccalaureates’. The minimum stipulated time-period to obtain this first academic degree of ‘Baccalaureates’ is completing three semesters. No age limit is stipulated to obtain this first academic degree of ‘Baccalaureates’”. We refer to our Chapter Four. Joan

Leopold loses her scholarly countenance on requests to provide us with: Ø Copy of the page from "ProChancellor's book" at Leipzig that shows that the degree was earned by Max Muller and also the bibliographical details of that "Pro-Chancellor's book at Leipzig" Ø Copy of the document supplied by Frau Drucker that shows the title of “his (Max Muller's) thesis listed on an index card”. Ø Copy of the documents which made her realise that as late as 1843 “In general German Ph.D. students

at that time were taking their first degree and were not required to do examinations but to do a thesis. Sometimes they had their thesis published, sometimes not. There could be an oral examination on the thesis subject, but I do not know whether this was held for MM.” Joan Leopold cuts off communications. She writes: “I would point out that if you wish to see a copy of the original documents from Leipzig University, it would be most direct if you wrote to them yourself for copies. This is the last communication I can enter into with

you at this time with regard to supplying more information. Thank you for your interest. Joan Leopold” ***** Well, this is naturally not the end of the story of Joan Leopold. We take liberty of a break and get back to the year 1888, to the beginning of the institution “Gifford Lectures” with lectures of Max Müller on his “science of Religion”. As already mentioned, “Gifford Lectures” is a memorial of Adam Gifford, created by Adam Gifford. He managed to earn a fortune. We do not know how he did it.

However, he had his faith and his way to look at life. And he was a Christian. He invested a large part of his wealth to propagate his faith and his way to look at life. His private Christian missions, so to say. University of Glasgow hires Max Müller to begin a series of lectures on religion, science and philosophy. The purpose is obvious. Propagate Christian missions of belief as perceived by Adam Gifford and cover the ground of truth and knowledge. We won’t get into the issue how much Adam Gifford learnt from Thomas Babington Macaulay, who belonged to Scotland as well.

So, the “Gifford Lectures” begin to deal with religion, science and philosophy with lectures delivered by Max Müller from 1888-1892. Max Müller did not study religion, science and philosophy as we know. We know also enough facets of his primitive faith in his Christian God. None the less, his lectures are published to cover the ground of truth. In his first lecture he does what he always did. He played “chatterbox” and drummed himself up as an all-round science-scholar. Whatever topic he was interested in, these were hyphened by “science of”. The first lecture is printed in 26 pages. On the page 17 we find a sentence which we have to deal with:

“The dissertation which I wrote in 1843, in order to obtain my Doctor’s degree, was ‘On the Third Book of Spinoza’s Ethics, De Affectibus’” This is the first time Max Müller has spoken out this sentence. Now in 1888 he is 65 years old, not old enough to be forgetful of one’s past. He deliberately speaks out this sentence. Why does he do it? Does he see now in 1888 the light of the day in “Gifford Lectures” to get into the “gallery of scholars”? To gain a clear picture we must rummage through the documents to put together all the bits of a puzzle. We begin with a review in very fast motion. Max Müller took admission at

Leipzig University in 1841. He didn’t complete his eighteen in age. He was not bright enough to get his school final certificate from the famous Nicolai Schule in Leipzig. He availed an alternative chance, we remember: “It was rather hard on me that I had to pass my examinations for admission to the University (Abiturienten-Examen) not at my school, but at Zerbst in Anhalt. This was necessary in order to enable me to obtain a scholarship from the Anhalt Government”. He studies at Leipzig University for five semesters, 2 ½ years. There is no record or a testimonial that he took part in any

examination there. Besides our detailed documentation of his student life at Leipzig University, we recall Max Müller’s report in “My Autobiography”, p. 151: “He (Gottfried Hermann) by no means discouraged me, nay, he was sorry to lose me, when in my third year I went to Berlin. He showed me great kindness on several occasions, and when the time came to take my degree of M.A. and Ph.D., he, as Dean of the faculty, invited me to return to Leipzig, offering me an exhibition to cover the expenses of the Degree.”

He flees to Berlin when he is 20 ½ years old. In Berlin he did not study at all. On 25.10.1844, a few weeks before he flees from Berlin to Paris, he signs his letter to his mother quite unusually as “Doktor Max Müller” and created for his mother the impression, as if he has just acquired his “Doctor’s Degree” at Berlin University We know that he did not earn any academic degree at Berlin. In Paris Max Müller prefers to pass as a Sanskrit scholar from Germany. As such he gets entry to the libraries. Later he will write in his “My Autobiography”, we remember: “My stay in Paris from March, 1845, to June 1846, was a very useful

intermezzo. It opened my mind and showed me a new world; showed me, in fact, that there was a world besides Germany, though even of Germany and German society I had seen very little. I had been working away at school and university, but with the exception of my short stay in Berlin, I had little experience of men and manners outside the small sphere of Dessau and Leipzig.” Financially he was broke. He took a chance moving to London as a gambler. Max Müller wrote in “My Autobiography” (p. 182): “While working in Paris I constantly felt the want of some essential MSS.

which were at the Library of the East India Company in London, and my desire to visit England consequently grew stronger and stronger ; but I had not the wherewithal to pay for the journey, much less for a stay of even a fortnight in London. At last (June, 1846) I thought that I had scraped together enough to warrant my starting.” In London he decided to swindle and go for one Dr. Max Müller, a Sanskrit scholar from Germany. First he swindled to his mother from Berlin when he signed as Dr. Max Müller. It remained then more a private affair. But in England, immediately after his arrival,

he announced this swindle publicly by putting it as his address-name. By chance he meets Christian Charles Josias Bunsen. When he first meets him he is absolutely stranded. We remember: “I had come over to London expecting to stay about a fortnight, but I had been there working at the Library in Leadenhall Street for nearly a month, and my work was far from done, when I thought that I ought to call on and pay my respect to the Prussian Minister, Baron Bunsen. I little thought at the time when I was ushered into his presence that this acquaintance was to

become a turning-point of my life. If I owed much to Burnouf, how can I tell what I owed to Bunsen? We remember also, Christian Charles Josias Bunsen was not a Baron in 1846. He however gave Dr. Max Müller a try to be recruited as one of his folk in London. He observed him for few months before he sponsored him to the East India Company for a questionable job on April 15, 1847. For details we refer to our Chapters 12, 13 and 15. By the end of realised that to in England he supported by certificates. We

1848 Dr. Max Müller obtain an academic job would have to apply, academically earned know, he was unable to

produce any academic certificate. He therefore wrote to Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, his patron, on October 18, 1848: “...It would be a great delight to me if I could see you for a few minutes, to ask your advice in a matter which occupies me a good deal.... With all my love of the past, and with a full belief in the future of Germany, I feel more drawn at present to English than to German soil. My work will keep me in England for the next few years ; and as Oxford is a very pleasant place of residence, I have an idea of entering one of the Colleges as an undergraduate, keeping my

twelve terms, and then taking my degree. I should hope to defray the expense by my own work, and the competition in the Oriental market is so small, that my prospects later on would probably not be bad.” Christian Charles Josias Bunsen and Max Müller’s second patron in the background, Thomas Babington Macaulay, were able to move quite-afew Oxford-academic-doers to get rid of the swindle of being Dr. Max Müller. Taylor Institution, Christ Church, making him honorary M.A., etc., and complete absence of records in the British archives in this regard, we remember. Max Müller was dressed and set for

mega swindles, Christianisation of Vedic and Sanskrit literature. This was how the systematic covering of the Era of Vasco da Gama begun. We are reminded of the beginning of the covering in Kolkata. William Jones created the first factory of faking history, his “Asiatick Society” in 1784. Max Müller repressed all these hard facts of his biography in 1888. We remember his “1859” as well. He published his “A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature”, on the same date of his marriage 3rd Aug 1859. His powerful mentor Thomas Babington Macaulay expired on 28th Dec 1859. Then in 1860 his mentor Christian

Charles Josias Bunsen left England. He was not yet a member of Oxford University. The chance to become a member of the Oxford University came a little later in the year 1860. But he failed miserably to succeed Horace Hayman Wilson as Boden professor for Sanskrit after his death. A teacher for Sanskrit at the Haileybury College, Monier Monier-Williams got the appointment, who was able to produce a letter of Horace Hayman Wilson containing the line: “I always have looked to you as my successor; but you will have a formidable competitor in M. Mueller, not only for his celebrity, but

personal influence.” This letter carries a date after “A history of Ancient Sanskrit Literature” was published. Max Müller had dedicated his major book to Horace Hayman Wilson as “his Pupil and Friend”, i.e. before he died. Max Müller did get an entry to the Oxford University after another five years as “Oriental SubLibrarian at the Bodleian”, i.e. in 1865. Even for this minor non-teaching post he had to put up a tough fight. Oxford University has its own culture. We have referred often to this special culture. The Taylorian Professorship for modern languages was to be dissolved in 1868.

Some provisions were to be made for Max Müller. A new Professorship for “Comparative Philology” was created in the same year. Sanskrit was denied to Max Müller. Yet, he continued to vendor himself as an eminent Sanskrit scholar, wrote letters to members of the British Government, published his “Volume I of Rig-vedaSanhita in 1869 claiming to have translated and explained a Sanskrit text. In 1874 he was to be “taught” by Theodor Benfey that the Vedic language is not the Sanskrit language. In 1875 Oxford University specially honoured the second Boden Professor for Sanskrit, Monier Monier-Williams,

with the “Honorary DCL title” for nothing in particular; Max Müller was unable to take it anymore. As professor for Comparative Philology at Oxford University he sent his resignation in December 1875. He reasoned: “I think my time in England is nearly up. I doubt whether I ought to stay longer. I am only tolerated at Oxford”. Three months later he withdrew his resignation. He got a deputy and functioned as a “professor emeritus”. He continued “translating” numerous Sanskrit texts. In 1876 Monier MonierWilliams, the second Boden Professor for Sanskrit was knighted. We do not

know how Max Müller took it. We know only that he blessed the world with 51 volumes under the title: Sacred Books of the East. All written in English. In 1883 Max Müller wrote to Georgina Max Müller: “There was a time when I should have liked to have been made Sir Frederick and you Lady Max Mueller. Dear Stanley wrote to me years ago that a baronetcy or a life peerage would be the right thing – however, we do very well without, and want nothing more from the world.” In 1883 Max Müller was 60 years old. ***** Between 1876 and 1888 he is seemingly

content with his mission, covering the ground of truth and knowledge with his “scholarly” publications. We remember his guide lines of life (highlighted by us): “The things that annoy us in life are after all very trifling things, if we always bear in mind for what purpose we are here. And even in the heavier trials, one knows, or one should know, that all is sent by a higher Power, and in the end must be for our best interests. It is true we cannot understand it, but we can understand that God rules in the world in the smallest and in the largest events, and he who keeps that

ever in mind has the peace of God, and enjoys his life as long as it lasts.” We get back, to “Gifford Lectures”, to Max Müller’s confession: “The dissertation which I wrote in 1843, in order to obtain my Doctor’s degree, was ‘On the Third Book of Spinoza’s Ethics, De Affectibus’” We know that Max Müller swindles here. We recall what he has written in his autobiography (p. 152): “He (Professor Gottfried Hermann) by no means discouraged me, nay, he was sorry to lose me, when in my third year I went to Berlin. He

showed me great kindness on several occasions, and when the time came to take my degree of M.A. and Ph.D., he, as Dean of the faculty, invited me to return to Leipzig, offering me an exhibition to cover the expenses of the Degree.” We could have let also this swindle be as it is. But we wanted to comprehend the logic behind this white-lie. We read the sentence carefully. Max Müller does not maintain that he obtained his “Doctor’s degree”. Quite tricky, isn’t it? Now in 1888 Max Müller is 65 years old, not too old to be forgetful of one’s past. He deliberately speaks out this sentence for the first time. Why does he

do it? Why does he go beyond the will of his Christian God? “I am satisfied with what God has given me.” Obviously he is no more as satisfied with his life as he was in 1883: “There was a time when I should have liked to have been made Sir Frederick and you Lady Max Mueller. Dear Stanley wrote to me years ago that a baronetcy or a life peerage would be the right thing – however, we do very well without, and want nothing more from the world.” In autumn 1888 things appear to have changed. Does Max Müller see the light of the day in “Gifford Lectures” to get

into the gallery of “scholars”? To gain a clear picture we must rummage through the documents again to put together all the bits of a puzzle. For this purpose we have to undertake different runs. This is one aspect of the issue. The other aspect of this issue is the intellectual outfit of his scholarly biographers, who obviously do not read or are unable to read and comprehend facts in contexts, but indulge themselves canvassing for Max Müller to place him in the gallery of “scholars” as a demigod. None of the biographers have read even this one sentence of Max Müller carefully: “The dissertation which I wrote in 1843, in order to obtain my Doctor’s degree,

was ‘On the Third Book of Spinoza’s Ethics, De Affectibus’”. Max Müller’s calculation proved to be right. Although careful reading of his autobiographical books would have revealed that amongst hundreds of names mentioned, Baruch Spinoza (1632 – 1677) is absolutely absent. And, none of his academic teachers at Leipzig University offered a course on Baruch Spinoza. These biographers seemingly just fulfil faithfully a mission and get paid for that. Why do we not learn to enquire who spends money on “biographers”, how did these “suitors” come to money and how this money is administrated?

We may find an indication looking into the academic achievements of Joan Leopold. She takes the trophy. She published as a member of University of California, Los Angeles, her paper on “Ethnic Stereotypes in Linguistics: The Case of Friedrich Max Müller (1847 – 51).” She begins with a faked biography of him. She adopts the same techniques of manipulation like Max Müller: Put swindles between harmless information for effective transport. The second paragraph of her paper begins (highlighted by us): “Max Müller, born in 1823 in the small German duchy of AnhaltDessau, received his education in

philology and philosophy at the universities of Leipzig and Berlin, before going to Paris and London to examine Sanskrit texts and edit the Rig Veda and Sayana’s commentary for the British East India Company. Although Müller’s education had included contact with the philosophies of Spinoza and Schelling, his early work centred on translation of poetic texts (Hitopadesha 1844, Meghaduta 1847 and ...”. This was published in the “Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS III), Princeton,

page19-23 August 1984”, long before Joan Leopold’s assignment to edit the Prix Volney Essay Series. Money does not stink. The category “shame” is unknown to the “Intellectual prostitutes”. ***** The “Gifford Lectures” of Max Müller continued up to 1892. For 1893/94 Max Müller keeps another surprise for us. We discover a printed “congratulatory certificate” carrying the date, September 1, 1893 and a pamphlet of 38 pages, printed and distributed by Max Müller in 1894. This certificate is also a fake. The “congratulatory certificate” is in

Latin, it has no head. It begins with a long introduction of “The famous and highly revered Gentleman Friedrich Maximilian Müller from Dessau”. Doctor of philosophy and magister of fine arts, also recognized by the actions of the universities in Cambridge and Edinburgh by awarding honorary Doctor of Law and Professor of Comparative Philosophy (philosophy?) at the University of Oxford, honoured with many prestigious decorations, “Adornment of the Indian Philosophy”. It ends mentioning the Dean Heinrich Bruns of the Faculty of Philosophy. We reproduce the printed “congratulatory certificate” in original

Latin carrying the date, September 1, 1893

This certificate along with a pamphlet of 38 pages was printed and distributed by Max Müller in 1894. This happening has been so far neglected by his “scholarly biographers”. These two matters are actually sufficient to reveal the “criminal” energy that drives to creating fakes and falsifying history. As already mentioned we have undertaken different runs and wherever we dig, we fall in identical dirty morass. We have viewed the pamphlet of 1894 as e-book from the Bavarian State Library. It is titled:

AN

OFFERING OF SINCERE GRATITUDE To my many Friends and FellowLabourers for their good wishes on the first of September 1893 the fiftieth Anniversary of my receiving the DOKTORS DEGREE in the University of Leipzig Horace Hart 1894

Horace Hart is a printer at Oxford. This “Offering of Sincere Gratitude” is followed by four portraits of Max Müller: as a boy of three years, as “student in the University of Leipzig”, as “ FOREIGN MEMBER OF THE FRENCH INSTITUTE, Photograph taken by Forshaw, Oxford”, as “FIFTY YEARS DOCTOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG, Photograph taken by Forshaw, Oxford.” Following the portraits there is the CATALOGUE OF PRINCIPAL WORKS PUBLISHED BY

PROFESSOR F. MAX MULLER. COMPILED BY M. V. ***** We recall how Joan Leopold suddenly broke off all communications with us. We think, she herself or her publisher must explain the issues we have raised. Joan Leopold stayed in Oxford for quite a long time. She is seemingly one of the front-combatants of Oxford. We must not put it more drastically. Yet, we shall have to deal with her specifically in a while. Here we raise only one simple issue. While Joan Leopold stayed in Oxford

“researching” the life and works of Max Müller, she could have easily searched for the original certificate showing that Friedrich Maximilian Müller did his M.A. and Dr. phil. at Leipzig in the archives in Oxford itself. When Max Müller applied to be selected for the Taylor professorship in 1854, he must have attached his academic certificates to his application. We assume, she did it and she could not find a single German academic certificate earned by Max Müller. We further assume that to avoid reporting and to hide her important finding, she laid a false track. She claimed to have identified documents in the archive of

Leipzig University and “trusted”: “My thanks are due to the university archivist, Ms. Drucker, for assistance in locating this information in 1970”. We shall deal with the archive of the Leipzig University in a little while. Joan Leopold did not hesitate also trying to mislead us. We remember: “To the best of my recollection without looking at the actual notes I took, the information on the thesis is drawn from note 1 up to the word "1970)". There was no thesis found at Oxford or Leipzig. If you do come across this thesis, I would very much appreciate hearing from you about it.” Did she really think that we would

discontinue our digging following this false track laid by her? Here we recall Joan Leopold‘s “note 1” once more: "F. Max muller, the Life and letters of the Right Honourable Friendrich Max Muller, ed. By Georgina Adelaide Muller (2 vols. Overseas ed. London-NewYorkBombay; Longmans, Green and Co., 1903), I,20. His dissertation was entitled "Spinoza de affectibus doctrina, tertia Ethices parte proposita." Procancellariatis- Buch der Philos. Fakultat, 6 September 1843, p.152, No. 6; card file of dissertation titles. ( My thanks are due to the university archivist, Ms. Drucker, for assistance

in locating this information in 1970)" She tried to misguide us even further (highlighted by us): “The information in the ProChancellor's book at Leipzig showed the degree was received by MM. The information from Frau Drucker was the title of his thesis listed, I believe, on an index card. In general German Ph.D. students at that time were taking their first degree and were not required to do examinations but to do a thesis. Sometimes they had their thesis published, sometimes not. There could be an oral examination on the thesis subject, but I do not know whether this was held for MM.”

Her false tracks have not functioned. We extend our search in England. Max Müller taught at Oxford as Taylor Professor for Modern Languages. He had to attach his academic certificates with his application. In Oxford archives his academic certificates are kept. The first but all certificates in the collection are non-German certificates. We possess the first one. It is a fake. It does not carry a seal or a signature. Any printer could have printed this piece of paper in Latin mentioning that Friedrich Maximilian Müller gets the degree M.A. and Dr. phil. at Leipzig. This has the same quality like that “congratulatory certificate” of September 1, 1893.

We do not overlook Georgina Max Müller’s report on the workload of Max Müller in 1853 on page 146 to get a bit of information in this context (highlighted by us): “How he managed to get through all his work is a marvel, for besides his lectures, his Vedic work, the Turanian article for Bunsen, and a new work forced on him by his indefatigable friend, of which we shall hear presently, he was collecting testimonials for the Curators of the Taylor Institution, who had definitely fixed the election to the Professorship for the beginning of the January Term. Meantime they had been so

satisfied with the result of the lectures, that, as he tells his mother, he is already receiving this quarter the full salary. The testimonials, the originals of which must ever be a precious treasure for his children, are from Humboldt, Bunsen, Bopp, Lepsius, Canon Jacobson (later Bishop of Chester), W. Thomson (later Archbishop of York), Mr. Jowett, Professors Wilson and Donkin.” Joan Leopold and other scholarly biographers of Max Müller must have noted that he was unable to collect testimonials from his academic teachers belonging to Leipzig University, nor he

was able to produce the certificate showing that he got a degree of M.A. and Dr. phil. at Leipzig. They should also have noted that Max Müller never used again “Dr. Max Müller” after the publication of the first volume of his Rig Veda in 1849. We skip here the episodes of his making or creating a M.A. out of the way. We must conclude that the faked certificate was created much later and then smuggled into Oxford archives. Is it not an open secret that forgery of documents has a long tradition in this culture? Christian Churches and “worldly” rulers maintained workshops to create documents to snatch away properties first from the weaker section

of their own people thanks to their “intellectual prostitutes”. We must not deepen into this issue here. But we feel, in our present context also, we must raise two of our simple and straightforward questions: Where does the wealth of Christian Churches and of the “Nobles” come from? And: Why have not these and other similar questions been raised yet? ***** We get back to the forged documents regarding Max Müller. We have just seen how unscrupulously “intellectual prostitutes” like “Joan Leopolds” spread white-lies. Being in Germany and teaching in German institutions Joan

Leopold knows very well that never in the history of German universities it was the practice: “In general German Ph.D. students at that time were taking their first degree and were not required to do examinations but to do a thesis. Sometimes they had their thesis published, sometimes not. There could be an oral examination on the thesis subject, but I do not know whether this was held for MM.” The Germans are known to keep records meticulously. From the beginning of the 16th century all doctoral “dissertations” are recorded. So it is claimed. This record up to 1900 was published in

1965 by Hermann Mundt and is available in all university libraries. A dissertation by Max Müller or by Friedrich Maximilan Müller is not included in this publication. We check in all archives in Saxony. We find a few documents in the archive of Leipzig University proving that Friedrich Maximilian Müller from Anhalt-Dessau was admitted as a student in philology in WS 1841/1842 and took a university leaving certificate in WS 1843/1844 still as a student in philology. There is no record of an examination that he passed. Friedrich Maximilian Müller took admission at the Royal Frederick

William University in Berlin as a student in theology in SS 1844 on 20.04.1844. It is also on record that he came from Leipzig, but not from Leipzig University. He did not ever renew his admission in Berlin for the next semester. He did not take a university leaving certificate from Berlin University. His “Matrikelnummer 34/557” was struck off on 29.01.1845. There is no other record there. But we have found a few remarkable documents in the archive of Leipzig University which are surprisingly irregular. We assess them as forged. Under the shelf number “UAL, Doktor, Diplome XX, 1892/1893 – Fr. Max

Müller” there is a certificate in DIN A 3 format, in Latin. This document does not carry a heading or a seal, or a signature. It is an ordinary print. It carries all features of an advertisement in a news paper on Max Müller. As a matter of fact it is not worth describing. Yet, it is exemplary to demonstrate how audaciously faked documents are fabricated and smuggled in archives. It is a primitive alleluia on a person who is to be ... ...then one starts reading some 250 words, half the document through, to come to know that the person is to be congratulated. For what? We shall write in a little while. But first it’s lay out: Q–B–F–F–F–Q–S

VIRO CLARISSIMO ET MAXIME VENERABILI FRIDERICO MAXIMILIANO MUELLER DESSAVIENSI We bring it in a literary translation. “The famous and most distinguished Gentleman Friedrich Maximilian Mueller from Dessau ... ... - then those some 250 words of laudation that is familiar to us from Max Müller’s first “Gifford Lecture” on himself - will be congratulated on his fiftieth commemoration of the award

ceremony and proclamation of the highest honour in philosophy on September first of the year 1843 and heartily be wished that he reaps fruits of his proficiency and of his inexhaustible works in his comfortable age and sound health by the Philosophical Faculty of the Humanity University Leipzig (ORDO PHILOSOPHORUM UNIVERSITATIS LITTERARIAE LIPSIENSIS) under the

president-in-office Dean.”

Heinrich Bruns,

Yes, it is identical to the certificate Max Müller got printed by Horace Hart in 1894. A letter of invitation to Max Müller from Leipzig University is not on

record. A ceremony of Leipzig University on this issue is also not on record. Instead we come to know from our third ranked primary source, Georgina Max Müller, that Max Müller and his wife started “for their long-planned holidays” at the end of April 1893. They were in Ascote, Ightham Mote, Rheims, Lucreen, St. Gothard, Milan, Certosa, Venice, Ravenna, Ancona, Brindisi, Patras, Corfu, Canone, Athens, Acropolis, Piraeus, Constantinople, Bosphorus, Broussa, Therapia, Buda-Pesth, Vienna, Dresden to Leipzig, arriving there to attend the 70th birthday “of Max Müller’s old friend Professor Carus”.

On page 303, Second Volume of Georgia Max Müller, we read (highlighted by us): “On September 1, Max Müller celebrated the Jubilee of taking his degree as Doctor of Philosophy, and received a new diploma from the University of Leipzig. All the Professors were away except Carus and Drobisch, whose lectures Max Müller had attended more than fifty years before, and who was too old to accompany Carus when he presented the new diploma in the name of the University.” The malice of this information is not

only that this “Carus”, is “Max Müller’s old friend Professor Carus”. Max Müller and his wife started “for their long-planned holidays” at the end of April arriving at Leipzig to attend the 70th birthday of “Max Müller’s old friend Professor Carus”. This “Max Müller’s old friend Professor Carus” had nothing to do with philosophy at Leipzig University. As a matter of fact, “Carus” was Julius Victor Carus, professor of comparative anatomy and director of the Zoological Museum at the University of Leipzig since 1853. We remember him. Max Müller helped him in Oxford, where he served as curator of the Museum of

Comparative Anatomy at Oxford University from 1849 to 1851 following a severe quarrel with his father. Julius Victor Carus was born on July 25, 1823. “On September 1, Max Müller celebrated the Jubilee of taking his degree as Doctor of Philosophy, and received a new diploma from the University of Leipzig.” From Leipzig Max Müller and his wife went to Dessau. We read a letter of Max Müller to his son dated September 4, 1893 (highlighted by us): “I had, among many other telegrams on the 1st, one from the Queen of Roumania, asking us to see her at

Wied. The Calices also telegraphed. All went on well at Leipzig, though there was not a single Professor of the Philosophical Faculty there. Carus had been commissioned to present the new diploma to me. He came in the University carriage, with the bedell, and we made some speeches one to the other. Then we had our Doctorschmaus, and enjoyed ourselves.” It is not on record when and how “the new diploma" could enter the archive of Leipzig University. But we do know that Julius Victor Carus was an influential person at Leipzig University and in Leipzig.

There is another entry of a handwritten paper in Latin (in a similar lay out of an examination paper) in the archive of Leipzig University. On the cover page there is a small stamp on which one reads handwritten: “Müller, Fr. M., 1843” and a shelf number: “UAL, Diss. 1819-1927“. Nothing more on it. The next pages show hastily handwritten lines in Latin beginning with a heading. We reproduce the heading and the first sentence of this paper in literal translation from Latin: “It is to investigate the teaching Spinoza’s on the status of intellect shown in third part of his “Ethik” The

Investigation

in

Spinoza’s

teachings on the status of intellect was for me a comfortable as well as an uncomfortable matter because of my apprehension that the allotted time would not be sufficient to deal with this dignified and important subject sufficiently and comfortable because I was permitted to write on a philosopher whom I admire because of his formal beauty, on which we can apprehend also the genius of the philosopher, whom in regard to his postulates and objectives have effectuated my full agreement, conviction and enlightment.” In the whole paper there are no other headings or sub-headings, nor an indication that this paper was to be a

part of a “dissertation” or so. We won’t get here into the issue of fakes, of workshops preparing fakes or of smuggling fakes in archives in this culture. The archives are full of fakes and the libraries are full of plagiarisms. The cry for “Bad Libraries” is unmistakable. We are rather back to Joan Leopold. Why did she fail to find these faked documents and Max Müller’s “dissertation” at Leipzig University? This is not the only issue when we mentioned a little earlier: “Well, this is naturally not the end of the story of Joan Leopold.” The worst is yet to come. *****

We can, to some extent, understand Max Müller. Swindlers like him forget where they came from, what they did in their life when they are through in their life with swindles, though by hook and crook; when they have made money and when they can look back to a “career”. Being as primitive as he was in his Christian faith, Max Müller might have accounted his life and works as the will of his Christian God. Even all that happened to him between 1860 and 1876 at Oxford. Yet he was contended with fulfilling his duty towards the British Crown in covering the ground that is marked by the Era of Vasco da Gama. He felt thankful to England getting the chance to do so.

As being a missionary himself Max Müller had no reason to have developed conscience. He had aspired for more. He was only disappointed and sad. He lived in Oxford, he served Oxford, he never criticised Oxford, he gave Oxford “the sciences” of what not, and Oxford never respected him, honoured him. Oxford even denied him as late as 1868 the denomination of his “Chair”: Comparative Philology and Sanskrit. Max Müller thought and eventually believed that he had many friends. But none of his friends or of his “pupils” ever thought to compile a biography of him. He aspired not to be forgotten. Then, out of the blue, “Gifford Lectures”

reached him. Was it not a wink of his Christian God? He decides in 1888 to erect his own memorial and applies thereby all his swindling intelligence, energy and means he possessed. Almost a hundred years later Joan Leopold appears on the scene. She is hired to polish and brush up the memorial of Max Müller. She serves satisfactorily. She does not hesitate to present false data on “the life and works of Max Müller”. The way she tried to put us on wrong tracks, we remember, was, at least, not decent. The harsh way she refused an academic discourse with us after we expressed our reservation towards the uncritical use of

secondary sources, we remember, motivates us to look into her career as well. And, as we have mentioned, wherever we dig, we fall in identical dirty morass. ***** Joan Leopold is born as Joan Silverberg in 1947 in a rich Jewish family in Floral Park Long Island, New York. She is graduated from the residential, private, exclusive (category Ivy League) “Vassar College” in New York. She gets her M.A. in European History from the exclusive, residential, private Harvard University. We read a report on her getting married on July 8, 1969 in “Altoona Mirror” under the

heading: “Miss Joan Silveberg, John William Leopold Wed”. The ceremony was in Jewish ritual. A few academic details on her are also mentioned in that news item: “She received a master’s degree in Modern European History from Harvard University and working toward a doctorate in that subject there. She has received Woodrow Wilson, Danforth foundation and Harvard Graduate Prize fellowships.“ Fellowships mean financial aids and one has to apply to getting a fellowship. Financial aids means also obligations towards the goals set by the donors of

the fellowship. Joan Leopold is now 22 years old. She is obviously well integrated in the Network of foundations engaged in recruiting and training future “elites”. “Harvard Graduate Prize” goes back to a bequest of Edward Hopkins (1600 – 1657), a London merchant. As simple minded and straightforward searcher we know that money is never spent without specific purposes. We rely on the wisdom of our ancestors that teaches us: He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Our ancestors teach us also: He who has the gold makes the rules. Later given attributions like charity, benevolence, altruism, Christian love, etc. do not

impress us due to two simple reasons: A bequest is generally 100 % exempted from income tax and all bequests are specifically conditioned, often using misleading formulations. The tune of Edward Hopkins was “the upholding & promoting of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ in those parts of the earth.” We are, therefore, eager to know where the big-money for a bequest comes from. Edward Hopkins was a London based merchant. We have not forgotten that “writers” of the East India Company in British India became in a few years “merchants”. The bequest of Danforth Foundation goes back to William H.

Danforth (1870 –1955) who founded Ralston-Purina, a company manufacturing cereals, packaged foods, pet food, and livestock feed. A merger with Nestlé in 2001 created Nestlé Purina PetCare Company. The Danforth Foundation subsidized the construction of 24 Danforth Chapels on college campuses around the United States. Its Christian missionary purpose is obvious. Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924) was the 28th President of the “USA”. We are reminded of the Latin proverb: Pecunia non olet ("money does not stink") and we must confess that we are unable take this roman heritage. The proverb has survived to this day to

justify the possession of money from unclean sources of income. Money does stink. We must learn to smell. We are unable to comprehend the psyche of Joan Leopold, being of Jewish origin, did not learn smelling Christian missionary purposes. Here we are reminded as well of Salomon Lefmann, as a religious Jew, for his failure to realise that Hebrew and anything Jewish had been excluded from the blond-blueeyed-white-Christian culture more than half a century earlier, before he wrote his book “Franz Bopp, his life and his science, Berlin 1891–1897". “IndoGermans” or “Indo-Europeans” or the “Aryan race” had nothing to do with

Jewish heritage. This Anglo-Saxon culture is fundamentally anti-Semitic. Joan Leopold leaves Harvard University a few months after her marriage, in 1970. She will disclose her purpose much later, after she reached her retirement age at Oxford. She joins the St. Antony’s College, Oxford, founded in 1950 on the gift of a French merchant called Antonin Besse of Aden. She coaches there two “US” students in history. Proudly she puts on record, 30 years later (highlighted by us): “Part of my goal when I became Oxford’s first American Rhodes Visiting Fellow in 1972 was to see that women at Oxford would be

inspired to follow their own goals and not just ‘praise famous men’. The path was not always as smooth as I might have hoped. I had come to Oxford to write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller (1823 – 1900), the Oxford Sanskritist and comparative philologist, who predated and encouraged similar beliefs on race and nationality as Cecil Rhodes. I had my doubts about how it would look for someone who specialised in the critical history of racial thinking to accept an award founded by Rhodes. The Rhodes Trust and my new college, Lady Margaret Hall, nevertheless, supported my work. However, resistance at Oxford

delayed its completion, as I was expected to preserve Müller’s reputation and was admonished for disregarding the feelings of his admirers.” This is the way practiced in academic circles to cover greed and of being polluted by money. Joan Leopold did not “write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller” whilst she was “Oxford’s first American Rhodes Visiting Fellow in 1972”. She never wrote “a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller”. She took the money not only of the Rhodes Trust and lost her eventual values and convictions being a religious Jew.

The Oxford University did not permit her to write “a critical biography” of Max Müller. Somebody else, one Nirad C. Chaudhuri, a non academic person from India, was set to write a biography of Friedrich Max Müller instead. And Joan Leopold did not leave Oxford immediately, go back to Harvard, and write on that issue. In a little while we will know this episode. We must take liberty of a short break now. ***** The above mentioned quote of Joan Leopold was not published before 2002. When we read it, we were reminded of “The Man Who Came to Dinner”. The

man was John Swinton, the doyen of the New York press corps. We owe to him the term “intellectual prostitutes.” His speech came late, but it came. And it is an exception. “Intellectual prostitutes” do not possess time for self-reflection or they are in love with their white-lies. In all times “intellectual prostitutes” operate at all levels of mindmanagement. At the bottom are the “teachers”, of the “elite” universities included. At the top are the “advisors” and the so-called “Think-Tanks”. Intellectual prostitutes serve all who can pay. The institutions of their operation assume the role of the brothels. The financiers assume the role of pimps. At

all level and in all categories there is their own pecking order. Joan Leopold reminds us of Thomas Babington Macaulay and Max Müller. We decline here to comment any further. We, however, unveil certain facts. “Rhodes Fellows” were and are ‘intellectual prostitutes’ kept by Cecil John Rhodes (1853 –1902), a British “mining magnet and politician” in South Africa, the chairman of De Beers in 1888, business partner of Rothschild & Sons. Today the Company markets 40% of the world's rough diamonds, and at one time marketed 90%. Cecil John Rhodes was the founder of the southern African territory of

Rhodesia, which was named after him in 1895. He had set up the provisions of the “Rhodes Scholarship”. He did all he could to expand the British Empire because of his conviction that only the “Anglo−Saxon race” is destined to greatness. In his last will and testament, Cecil John Rhodes maintained belonging to the Britons: "I contend that we are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought

under Anglo-Saxon influence, look again at the extra employment a new country added to our dominions gives." He established the “Rhodes Scholarship”, the world’s first international project, to recruit intellectual prostitutes from British dominated areas, including “Canada”, “USA”, “Australia”, “New Zealand”, “Cape Colony” and Germany to study “at the Rhodes's alma mater, the University of Oxford”, to learn to dominate the world. Rhodes fellowship was created in the 1970’s also for women from the same areas. Well, “Rhodes’s University of Oxford” may be

the right term, but the University of Oxford as “alma mater” is not acceptable. Oxford was never a university. Oxford was always the ideological wing and the foremost cadre-training centre of British missions “overseas”. Right from the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama Oxford University functioned with blood-money from occupied areas in the main. Cecil John Rhodes is an example only. Thus we are back to Joan Leopold. Her services as Rhodes fellow ends in 1974. She then takes refuge in “The Leverhulme Trust”, established on the will of William Hesketh Lever, the founder of the soap maker Lever

Brothers, providing grants and scholarships since 1925. The Lever Brothers merged with the Dutch margarine Company Van den Bergs in 1930 to form Unilever. William Hesketh Lever started with “Sunlightsoap”. To produce as cheaply as possible he took grants from King Leopold of Belgium in Congo. Thereby the population of Congo was reduced by half, we read in a book by Jules Marchal: 'Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo', Verso Books, 2008. William Hesketh Lever was an advocate of expansion of the British Empire, particularly in Africa and Asia,

which supplied palm oil, a key ingredient in Lever's product line. We must not go deep into the implications of “palm oil” up to our days. William Hesketh Lever was made the 1st Viscount Leverhulme in 1922. In 1975 Joan Leopold receives her “PhD in History” from Harvard University, not from Oxford University. We have not come across her published dissertation yet. Thereafter she rummages through foundations, also of German origin. In a remarkable “Profile with Joan Leopold” of the Rhodes Project we read: “Rhodes Project : When you were a kid, what did you aspire to

be later in life? Joan Leopold : At one point, I wanted to be a veterinarian. I liked dogs and horses. Rhodes Project : When did you first become passionate about law? Joan Leopold : It’s not that direct. I’m also an historian and I was doing British and European history at Oxford. Rhodes Project : Can you tell me a little bit about what you were doing at Oxford? Joan Leopold : You have to understand,

first of all, that I’m not a Rhodes Scholar. I’m a Rhodes Fellow. I was the first Rhodes Fellow from the western hemisphere. I was already at St Antony’s College, which is a graduate college at Oxford. Then I applied for the Rhodes fellowship at Lady Margaret Hall, so I had already been at Oxford for two years. I was awarded the fellowship, which is a faculty-level position, in 1972. It was before Cecil Rhodes’ will had been changed by Parliament to allow women

Scholars. The Fellowships were developed for women because the Rhodes Trust couldn’t give women scholarships under the will that Rhodes had left without a change voted by Parliament. So it set up the Fellowships as an alternative for women. They rotated among what were then the women’s colleges, which are now mostly coeducational. Each college had one a year and they could decide what geographical area it was from.

Rhodes Project : Can you tell me a little bit about your job right now? Joan Leopold : I’m over retirement age in England, but I’m writing books, teaching and I also practice law. I am a nonpracticing solicitor, though I qualified as a solicitor. Before that, I qualified as a California attorney, so I’m a California attorney who is a non-practicing solicitor at the moment. It may be that I will be practicing soon in England as well.” Further diggings lead us to the same

dirty morass. We recall Joan Leopold’s claim: “I had come to Oxford to write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller (1823 – 1900), the Oxford Sanskritist and comparative philologist, who pre-dated and encouraged similar beliefs on race and nationality as Cecil Rhodes. I had my doubts about how it would look for someone who specialised in the critical history of racial thinking to accept an award founded by Rhodes. The Rhodes Trust and my new college, Lady Margaret Hall, nevertheless, supported my work. However, resistance at Oxford delayed its completion, as I was expected to preserve Müller’s reputation and was admonished for

disregarding admirers.”

the

feelings

of

his

Joan Leopold‘s first published paper in 1970 in an Indian Journal indicates that, before she arrived at Oxford, she worked on “Aryan Theory”, whatever this might be. She has yet “to write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller”. ***** As referred by Joan Leopold herself, she came to Oxford in 1970 “to write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Müller”. She only needed access to the archives of the Oxford University. Isn’t it? Instead she tales a rather phony story:

“...the Oxford Sanskritist and comparative philologist, who predated and encouraged similar beliefs on race and nationality as Cecil Rhodes. I had my doubts about how it would look for someone who specialised in the critical history of racial thinking to accept an award founded by Rhodes. The Rhodes Trust and my new college, Lady Margaret Hall, nevertheless, supported my work. However, resistance at Oxford delayed its completion, as I was expected to preserve Müller’s reputation and was admonished for disregarding the feelings of his admirers.” We are too simple-minded to be bluffed.

The hard fact must have been, when Joan Leopold approached for access to the documents regarding Max Müller, she came to know that one “Indian” gentleman has been hired to write a thorough biography of Max Müller. She was 23 years old, she had already a fellowship, yet she applied for a more lucrative fellowship, founded by Cecil Rhodes. She did not have the drive or the courage to ignore that “Indian” gentleman and follow dedicatedly her own study. She preferred to sell herself. This “Indian” gentleman was then years old. No, we apologise for characterisation “Indian” gentleman. was Nirad C. Chaudhuri, an author.

73 the He He

left India in 1970 and settled down at Oxford with his wife. The Indians like Nirad C. Chaudhuri are only “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”. For details we refer to LIES WITH LONG LEGS. Before we get into this drama in Oxford, on Joan Leopold, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, and Oxford University, we must take a break to look behind a little to understand the stage and the sets of this drama that we intend spread out. ***** We review the sets on the stage in its elementally level as simple-minded and

straightforward searchers and in absolute quick motion. The beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama is marked with war, robbery, murder, genocide. Then it is marked by the phase of recruiting mercenaries at various levels. Thereafter, it is the phase of “intellectual prostitutes”. We remember the “Pandits” in Kolkata. Together with the mercenaries, “intellectual prostitutes” and a few of earlier power-holders a foreign education programme is introduced. This marks the phase of sustained exploitation. War, Robbery and Exploitation in foreign lands build foundations of the early accumulation of “capital” in the kingdoms of the occupants.

During this phase the people in the occupied areas are robbed of their culture and language, i.e. the people become victims of cultural genocide. To survive, the people were compelled to cope with the new European Christian culture, European language and European institutions of rule. For all practical purposes the people in all occupied lands are enslaved. Almost all handed-down economical, social and cultural structures are “re-formed” to serve the short-and-long time interests of the foreign occupants. New “Terms of Trade” are laid. Transfer of raw materials from occupied areas at buyers’ terms, for production of finished

goods and sell a part of the finished goods in the occupied areas, at sellers’ terms. Markets for goods produced in occupied areas are systematically destroyed. This phase is labelled as “the early industrialisation”. Thus the forerunner of today’s “International Monetary Fund” is created. The next phase in the Era of Vasco da Gama is marked by the “Thomas Babington Macaulays” in all occupied areas; their “30 years plans” as well. The “Max Müllers” fulfil their missions all over. Enough clones are produced to reduce the costs of “government” in the occupied lands and eventual routes to getting back of these clones to their roots

are barricaded. The next phase is reached to transfer administrative authority to the clones. The established “terms of trade” and of “International Monetary Fund” ensure that the cost of exploitations reduce towards zero. This phase is labelled in the “scholarly world of unscrupulous justifiers”, by “intellectual prostitutes” as a period of “de-colonisation”. By this label the European Christians and their clones transferred the blame and responsibility to the victims, to the impoverished people, as if the Era of Vasco da Gama is rather an unfortunate marginal historical footnote. In the world of “free and independent

nations” the people of individual nations are responsible for their own lot. To consolidate this line to viewing history, teachers at all level, scholars, makers of reference books, media-makers, advisors, administrators at all level, are well paid for their service. Warmongers, Robbers, murderers, genociders, exploiters can hide themselves behind the masks created; the various “international” and “multinational” agencies. The mindmanagement has reached an efficiency that we seldom want to put the most simple and most important question to assess the quality of “institutions”: Who puts the most money in those “international” and “multinational”

undertaking? We have almost eradicated the eternal wisdom that our ancestors handed-down:

He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Or He who has the gold makes the rules. ***** We get back to Joan Leopold, to Nirad C. Chaudhuri and to Oxford University. Nirad C. Chaudhuri was born in 1897 in Kishorganj, Bengal. Three years

before Max Müller expired after fulfilling his mission, implementing the second grand plan of Thomas Babington Macaulay and covering the ground of truth at his best. In 1910 the whole family of Nirad C. Chaudhuri moved to Kolkata. His mother was to be treated against cancer. The family returned to Kishorganj in 1913. His elder brother and he stayed back in Kolkata. He was then 16 years old. He broke off his studies just before his “post graduation”, leaving behind his mission schools, college and his dream of becoming a Professor. Instead he began already in 1921 serving the British “Military Accounts Department”

in Kolkata. He was then 24 years old. After November 14, 1927 Nirad C. Chaudhuri did not see Kishorganj again. In frustrations he developed into “a well-read person and depressive loner”. He felt comfortable in the “intellectual world” of the Britons, so it is said. But strangely enough, in 1938, Nirad C. Chaudhuri got a job as secretary to Sarat Chandra Bose (1889 – 1950), a barrister and a leftist freedom fighter. He was then forty-one. On August 14, 1941 the “USA”President and the Prime Minister of the “United Kingdom” met on the ship “H.M.S. Prince of Wales, somewhere at sea" and signed the “Atlantic Charter”

fixing the set of principles of collaboration to maintaining international peace and security. We are reminded of the papal bull in the 15th century. And also of the knowledge of our ancestors: He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Sarat Chandra Bose was arrested in December 11, 1941. This arrest was months before the “Quit India” demand was launched by the freedom movement that lead to arrest of all notable leaders in 1942. During the last general elections in India this arrest and his association with the “British intelligence” were being discussed. This Atlantic Charter was signed later

by representatives of 26 “allied nations” fighting against the “Axis Powers” on 1 January 1942 in Washington and was called the “Declaration by United Nations”. This term was coined by the “USA” - President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882 − 1945). In March 1942 Nirad C. Chaudhuri moved to Delhi. He was then 45 years old. He served there the British controlled “All India Radio” and excelled with pro-British commentaries. China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” signed agreements in Moscow and in Teheran in 1943 to establish an international organization to maintain peace and security. In

meetings between September 21 and October 7, 1944 in Washington China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” agreed on the aims, structure and functioning of a world organization. On February 11, 1945, the Heads of Soviet Union, United Kingdom and “United States” met at Jalta and declared their resolve to establish “a general international organization to maintain peace and security”. In an international conference on June 25, 1945, 50 nations adopted in San Francisco the 111-articled-Charter of United Nations. The United Nations was factually created as its Charter was

ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council and by a majority of other members on October 24, 1945. This chronology reveals where the initiative came from and for what purpose: for peace and security, as it was thought out and defined by the “USA” and by the “United Kingdom”. And we are again reminded of the eternal wisdom that our ancestors handed-down: He who pays the piper, calls the tune. Or: He who has the gold makes the rules. A complete set of specialized agencies were created to secure control over developments in the world. It is notable that the “UN - World Bank Group” was already founded in the

“USA” in July 1944, i.e. before the foundation of the UN itself. The International Monetary Fund was also designed in July 1944, but founded in December 1945 in the “USA” as a specialized agency of the UN to control monetary policy, expansion of world trade, stabilization of exchange rates, lending, monitoring of monetary policy as well as technical assistance. In the whole process to the foundation of the United Nations with all its specialized agencies there was never ever a mention of the hard facts that war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, mercenary, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands by

European Christians in the Era of Vasco da Gama were causally related to “peace and security” of our world. The “United Nations” was constructed to protect the Anglo-Saxon hegemony and to cover the Era of Vasco da Gama. The UN is a creation of the UK and the “USA” and is a financial dependent of the “USA”. And we all know: He, who pays the piper, calls the tune. And: He who has the gold makes the rules. The “General Assembly” of the UN is a deceptive-package. The decision making “Security Council” as well. Nothing can be decided in the Security Council if one of the five permanent members votes against a resolution. These members are:

“USA”, UK, France, USSR (now Russia) and China (now “People’s Republic of China). And, the “SecretaryGeneral” has to carry out “his master’s wish”. Dismantling the Era of Vasco da Gama was never an issue in the UN, this Era remains veiled and thus the continuation of all those crimes committed in this Era are guaranteed. Turmoil’s following the so-named World War II compelled the British Kingdom to restructure its empire. The Indian Independence Act 1947 was passed in the British Parliament dividing British India into the two new independent dominions of India and Pakistan and to many British-created “Princely States”.

These States became part of the “Commonwealth”, another deceptive package. All existing governing institutions continued as usual after the Britons had handed over the administrative authority to political leaders, all to the “grandchildren” of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The “All India Radio” and Nirad C. Chaudhuri included. But the “Nirad C. Chaudhuris” all over were gradually side-lined. The “heads” of the occupants had left and they could not adjust themselves with the “new heads”, with the clones. Immediately after the “Indian Independence” there was war between

India and Pakistan. Thus the Britons remained in both “independent” states. We recall the years following the “World War II” when gradually almost all occupied lands became “independent”. The terms “decolonization” or “Independent States” were coined to camouflage the process. The foreign occupants handed over the administrative authority to the “leaders” in the occupied lands, to “leaders” who spoke their language, who were trained by the foreign occupants and were only “different in blood and colour, but in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, were just clones of foreign occupants. The only substantial change

in the Era of Vasco da Gama was the reduction costs for the occupants to maintaining the status quo established in the Era. The so-called Cold War began between the “socialistic” USSR and “capitalistic” “USA” and its allies in 1947. The term Cold War is also deceptive. In April 1949 NATO was officially founded. The People's Republic of China was established on October 1, 1949. The USA made war in Puerto Rica already in 1950. The war in Korea started also in 1950. In 1955 the Warsaw Pact was founded. On the military front the “capitalistic” USA and its allies continued wars to consolidate

their economic and military domination of the world. We remember Vietnam (1955), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Indo-Pakistani-War (1965) and Dominican Republic (1965). We must raise here an issue that has been left out in this context; the issue of Production and distribution of War-Materials. Which countries are involved? In the next chapter we will deal with this issue. In 1951 Nirad C. Chaudhuri, already 54 years old, published his first book: The Autobiography of an unknown Indian. This book carries a remarkable dedication: “To the memory of the British Empire

in India which conferred subjecthood on us but withheld citizenship; to which yet everyone of us threw out the challenge: ‘civis britannicus sum’, because all that was good and living within us was made, shaped and quickened by the same British rule.” Well! A Lot of controversies followed. The British Kingdom took notice of him. In 1955, the culture−propaganda institution British Council and the BBC jointly organized for Nirad C. Chaudhuri a stay for eight weeks in Britain. He contributed eight lectures on British life to the BBC. These lectures became his second book, “A passage to

England” in 1959. His third book, “The continent of Circe” in 1965 brought him, now 68 years old, a British Award. The leaders of the “decolonized” lands were getting “feelings” that the prevailing structure of sustained exploitation had to be dismantled. But how? Their mental and political horizon was limited within the boundaries of the “play ground” in capital cities of the occupants. The players were hardliners and others; there were rightists and leftists, conservatives and progressives, right wings and left wings. The leaders of the “decolonized” lands being “Macaulay’s grandchildren” could not realise, unless they rejected that “play

ground” of the occupants, rejected the rules of the game, they will play the role of the occupants only. The whole dilemma of these “leaders”, who were “different in blood and colour, but in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” Europeans, is exemplarily revealed, when we look to the career of the Indian diplomat Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon (1896 –1974). He was definitely an honest Indian nationalist and an antiimperialist. He talked of an imminent third way, that of “Political-NonAlignment”, at the United Nations as early as in 1952. All these roles and this “third way” were within the boundaries

of the occupants’ playground following the rules laid by the occupants. Rules were to be laid by the oppressed and not to be played on the occupants’ playground. We take a closer look to this period. Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon had studied brilliantly in England acquiring different academic degrees in the years from 1924 to 1934. He made a career in the British Kingdom as labour member, developed also intense mistrust towards the British Kingdom and yet did not arrive to the issue of dismantling the Era of Vasco da Gama. He became the first Indian High Commissioner in the UK after the “Independence“.

The first large-scale Afro–Asian Conference at Bandung in Indonesia took place on April 18–24, 1955, 25 countries, representing nearly one-fourth of the Earth's land surface and a total population of 1.5 billion people. The conference was opposed to “colonialism” or “neo-colonialism”, but did not spell out what it actually meant. It was beyond their mental horizon to refer to wars, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, mercenary, occupationchildren, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands by European Christians, i.e. to refer to the Era of Vasco da Gama that was to be dismantled. Thomas Babington Macaulay’s seeds bore fruits. In 1961

the organization of the “Non-aligned movement” was founded in Belgrade. These “post-world-war II” developments involved the risk that those “leaders”, “different in blood and colour, but in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” could be compelled by the normative force of the factual to looking back to the roots of the evil: dismantling of the Era of Vasco da Gama. This risk was foreseen by Thomas Babington Macaulay’s heirs, who applied old strategies of the Era of Vasco da Gama: Buy enough “opinion leaders” to make the impoverished people believe that a "forward strategy” in search for “remedies” of the evil will

ultimately eradicate the evils. The leaders of the “decolonized” lands, the United Nations with their various agencies equipped with staffs belonging to “new nations” and the democratic and humanitarian mask of “western nations” with their many new “multinational organisations” successfully won the minds of the oppressed people. They were made to believe that all conceivable measures were on the way of implementation to overcome the evils caused by “colonialism” or “neocolonialism”. Aided by monopolies of media the grand international mind-management machinery started its run to deceive and

deprive the impoverished people. International agencies integrated many “flagship−persons” who are only “different in blood and colour” to cover the interests followed by those agencies. The whole front of Foundations and of Universities becomes active. “Elite” Universities like Oxford and Harvard do make the forerunners. In January 1961, the United Nations declared that the decade of the 1960s would be the Decade of “Development“. This is just a declaration. Intellectual prostitutes were hired to write expertises. These were published to propagate that those “bought” services were earnest efforts to eradicate poverty and political injustice of the have-nots

on our earth. These were in fact exercises to cover the ground that all these evils were and are caused by the Era of Vasco da Gama. All those intellectual prostitutes propagate the “mission” of a forward strategy. They want us to forget the past. We cite here three examples. The book “ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Theory, History, Policy. Publisher: ASIA PUBLISHING HOUSE. Bombay~Calcutta~New Delhi ~ Madras ~ Lucknow ~ Bangalore ~ London ~ New York” is marketed in 1957 for extensive circulation. Authors: Gerald M. Meier and Robert E. Baldwin. Gerald M. Meier (1923 –

2011) was trained at Oxford University, a Rhodes Scholar and a Gugenheim Fellow. “Rhodes Scholar” we already know. Meyer Guggenheim of Jewish origin arrived in “America” in 1847, accumulated riches from “Mining, Smelting and Investment Banking”. The Gugenheim family accumulated one of the largest fortunes in the world during the 19th century. The junior author Robert E. Baldwin (1928 – 2011) was trained at Harvard University. Gunnar Myrdal (1898 – 1987), a Swedish Socialist, writes almost 3000 pages by 1967 to publish his “Asian Drama, an enquiry into the Poverty of Nations”. The “USA“ based Twentieth

Century Fund, had financed and published this monumental book. The Century Foundation was founded in 1919 by Edward A. Filene (1816 – 1937). He is of Jewish origin, a merchant, owner of Filene’s department stores, and Banker. The World Bank initiates in 1967 a comprehensive evaluation of “Development efforts” alarmed by global crisis on many fronts. A Commission on International Development was set up under the Canadian Lester Bowles Pearson (1897 – 1972). He was educated in Princeton University and in Columbia University in “USA”. He was a professor, historian,

civil servant, statesman, diplomat, and politician, who won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1957. The Report is published, the “Pearson Report”, and extensively circulated. It is remarkable that this Commission on International Development ascertains the need of “aids” for the “developing countries” for their economic development. “Aids”? Who cares that “aids” in this context are loans on interests only? These Loans are channelized by the “World Bank”, an under-organisation of the UN. The “developed countries” are to contribute 1% of their GNP (Gross National Products) as “aids” to the “developing

countries”. Is it not a convincing concept? We cannot further deepen this aspect in our context. We describe only how the Era of Vasco da Gama has been systematically veiled. Who will raise now the issue of sustained exploitation of the now “have-nots”? We take liberty to make two off-beat remarks: Ø This “needed” 1% of GNP as “development aid” was never achieved. The formulation of this need by this Commission on International Development under Lester Bowles Pearson indicate also that the loud camouflage on “Development Aids” were not

only “hot-airs”. It is hypocrisy in perfection. Ø The Nobel Prize for Peace was awarded to Lester Bowles Pearson. He failed, even after he retired from active politics and taking up university professorship, at least to raise the issue of a payback programme of the booties, of a compensation programme of the immoral profits by exploitations of the people and of reparations for wars, murders and genocides. Does it indicate something? What does it indicate? We leave these two questions unanswered. A flood of international

mind-management activities comes over us. The need was not only appeasing the vast majority of exploited people in the “areas of foreign occupation”, but also to appease the youth in the countries of systematic exploiters. We remember the international students’ revolts of the sixties in the last century. The purpose of this flood of international mindmanagement activities is to cut off the paths to a few simple historical truths, to the inhuman evils being caused in the Era of Vasco da Gama. ***** We get back to the drama in 1970 concerning Joan Leopold, Nirad C. Chaudhuri, and Oxford University. This

university was always a forerunner of intellectual crimes. We have documented quite a few incidents. The next generations of Oxford “front runners” have lesser scruples. They are not content with “covering the ground of truths”, Christianising the cultures in the occupied areas. They want more than the implementation of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s 30-years plan. They now plan to sing the song of hail and glory of the Era of Vasco da Gama. They don’t do these themselves. They engage nonBritish “intellectual prostitutes” to add “authenticity”. We remember Thomas Babington Macaulay’s long search identifying Max

Müller, a non-Briton swindler for the dirty job, to implementing his 30-years plan. We remember also all those humiliations of Max Müller at Oxford. Max Müller’s absolute loyalty towards Thomas Babington Macaulay, and when he expired, towards the British Crown did not count. Hundred years later they do not have scruples taking once so humiliated Max Müller for creating a memorial to move further than Thomas Babington Macaulay’s 30years plan. And this was to be performed by new “Max Müllers”, by persons belonging to “Macaulay’s new class” in occupied lands, different “in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”.

Ever since Nirad C. Chaudhuri published his first book “The Autobiography of an unknown Indian” along with the dedication: “To the memory of the British Empire in India which conferred subjecthood on us but withheld citizenship; to which yet everyone of us threw out the challenge: ‘civis britannicus sum’, because all that was good and living within us was made, shaped and quickened by the same British rule” he was on the clandestine list of Oxford University as a potential “intellectual prostitutes”, no as an “intellectual courtesan” actually. Nirad C. Chaudhuri was passing a

modest life in austerity in New Delhi in spite of his third book “The continent of Circe” in 1965 had brought him a British Award. He was to be hired and engaged by Oxford University to build a “Memorial of Max Müller” as a scholardemigod to glorify the Era of Vasco da Gama. He was observed and examined more meticulously. He was certainly to be an “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”, and a far better bet than Max Müller was. Nirad C. Chaudhuri and his wife accepted the “invitation“, left India in 1970 and shifted to Oxford. Joan Leopold appeared on the scene rather untimely. No, she appeared on the stage too late.

We wonder why the front soldiers of Oxford University did not consider engaging Joan Leopold as well to glorify Max Müller, Oxford Scholarship and Briton’s occupation of “India”. She belonged to Harvard University, which is a replica of Oxford University. And she was a non-Christian. Was she too unknown, too young, not fit enough? We won’t speculate. We do not know whether an offer was made to her. We requested Joan Leopold to help us as a primary source. She refused to disclose whether she met Nirad C. Chaudhuri at Oxford, eventually how often she interacted with him and what were their topics. Then, what exactly

hindered her “to write a critical biography of Friedrich Max Muller”. We requested her for copies of her various applications with her bio-data up to her PhD. We had been frank about our motive of scrutiny. Joan Leopold did not fulfil our requests. She knows about our simplicity and straightforwardness. We all know that “no reply” at times reveal more than “producing words”. We, for ourself, are not inclined to speculate. She kept absolute dumb. We take leave of her referring to the fact that within two years, in 1972 she willingly let her hire for a Rhodes fellowship. It is not convincing to lament after around 30

years, but it reveals the prevalent academic culture, a real dirty morass. Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s “invitation” to Oxford, when he was 73 years old, has never been an issue of a discussion. Who should be interested to discuss such an issue in the seventies of the last century? We feel urged to raise the issue. Why was he “invited”? To be precise, why was he hired? How was it initiated, by whom, in which institution, for what purpose, from which fund the money came from and what was the price for this very special service? We don’t find answers. We don’t find records. We know only that Nirad C. Chaudhuri was passing a modest retired

life in austerity in New Delhi, side-lined from the “mainstream” in India. He left India along with his wife in 1970 and shifted to Oxford. The passage to England, a home at Oxford and living there were expensive. We know also that there is a bare-knuckle competition on “roads” of “intellectual prostitutes” as well. Nothing more is known to us. We must search for those little bit of indication in this dirty morass and try to put them together to get glimpses of the truth. In 1974 he blessed the Anglo-Saxonworld publishing the book titled: Scholar Extraordinary. The Life of Friedrich Max Muller in arrangement

with Chatto & Windus Ltd, London. This publishing house was founded in 1855 and was acquired by Random House in 1987. From Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s acknowledgements in the book we know that he worked on the book for four years. British hot-volley helped him. He specifically mentions of help deciphering Greek and Latin documents. He does not mention German documents? In regard to German documents he depended on the two volumes of Georgina Max Müller. He relied on her translations. The final editing is not his own. Then we read the sentence (highlighted

by us): “The introduction which follows will explain why I undertook to write Max Müller’s life anew after the first and last biography so far written was published in 1902.” And, in the introduction we read: “This is a biography, that is to say, an account of the life of a man who was a scholar and a thinker; it is not except incidentally a discussion or evaluation of his work in the fields of knowledge with which his scholarship was concerned. But a biography should not be inflicted on a reading public without proper justification, I do not think that a man is entitled to such treatment only on

the strength of his position and fame in his own age, unless in addition he played a role in history that he remains an element to be reckoned with in understanding the continuing evolution of a particular people or humanity in general; nor unless his personality and activities belong to a type whose presence and functioning is continuous and universal, so that no outstanding individual of the type ever loses his relevance to all ages. Whether Max Müller deserves a new biography in the light of such a criterion cannot be discussed without taking note of two indisputable facts

about him; the first, that he is completely forgotten today; and the second, that when he dies in 1900 and for thirty years before that he was a world figure.” Well, he did not explain why he “undertook to write Max Müller’s life”. A little low-key in the “introduction” would not have exposed that he is just not able to disclose his real motive why he “undertook to write Max Müller’s life” at the age of 73 and not earlier, and living in New Delhi. At least he didn’t boast collecting the highest price ever in his life for his services to Oxford University. In 1975 Nirad C. Chaudhuri published

another thick volume that was also planned in 1970 as we read in his “Preface”. The title of the book: CLIVE OF INDIA. Subtitle: A Political and Psychological Essay. It is a biography of the British ruffian Robert Clive (1725 – 1774) who is later considered to be the founder of “British India“. It was published by Berrie & Jenkins Limited which now belongs to Random House as well. We refer to our Chapter Eleven reminding the British ruffian Robert Clive. Here in a nutshell: A problemchild of lower middle class, the eldest of 13 children. He fails in the schools and as a tailor apprentice, arrives in

Madras as a “writer”. He is eighteen. There he was considered to be moody, quarrelsome and violent. He fought a duel also. He was often alone and depressed. He once attempted to commit suicide. In India he discovers his cunning and is accordingly permitted to become a “ruffian” in 1847. And in 1753 he returns home, with a fortune of £40000. He is honoured by the Board of Directors of the East India Company, wins a Parliament seat for Cornwall. But he is vigorously challenged by rivals leading to the cancellation of his election on March 23, 1755. On April 23, 1755 he sails to India again on

demands of the shareholders of the East India Company. There are troubles in Bengal. He returns only five years later, in July 9, 1760 with a huge fortune of more than half million English pounds. He is publicly celebrated by King George II on July 14, receives an honorary Doctor degree from Oxford University. Yes, Oxford University. In March 1761 he is elected a member of parliament. He is raised to Lordship at the end of the year 1761. Being persuaded he sails to India as Lord Clive for a third time in April 1764, returns in 1767. He cannot make a political career. His social origin was too modest. He is frequently attacked in parliament because of his machinations

in India and also as a despot. On November 23, 1774 at the age of 49 he commits suicide. “Shame” seems to be an unknown category to Oxford University. An Indian like Nirad C. Chaudhuri is hired to hail Max Müller and Robert Clive as late as in 1970. We read only a pocket book copy published by “Jaico Publishing House, India’s own Pocket Editions” in 1977. “India’s own? Jaico was founded in 1946 as a book distribution business for “US” paperback publishers. In the “Introduction” we read on the pages 11/12: “In regard to the topics included in the biography it will be found that

there is a good deal of that is not about Clive, and would seem at first sight to belong to history rather than to biography. But these had to be brought in because in this period Clive and British India coincided. ... It is not possible to write about the foundation of an empire without seeming to be imperialistic. For myself, I only claim freedom from preconceptions about Clive and the British Empire, not because I did not have them, but because I have outgrown them.” Well, Nirad C. Chaudhuri was worth his money. We read on page 111: “There was nothing uncommon in the fact of

Clive’s money-making in India. At first it conformed wholly to established practice, and had nothing spectacular about it. For a long time after this, young Englishmen of impoverished middle class backgrounds, and also of impecunious noble families, were to come to India to make or repair fortunes. Arthur Wellesley, the future duke of Wellington, went to India in 1796, heavily in debt, and came back in 1805 not only clear of all debts, but with nearly £43,000. He made this money in ways that were considered wholly legitimate. So did Clive.” Both volumes were extensively circulated worldwide. Instead of our comments we would like to refer to LIES

WITH LONG LEGS for many details.

Nirad C. Chaudhuri’s service to his clients brought him and his wife an affluent “decent” life at Oxford with their own home and all that goes with it for the rest of their life. We won’t quit him before we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica: “In the 1970s Chaudhuri chose to leave India for England. There he settled in the university town of Oxford. He had envisioned this move as a homecoming of sorts, but he found a much different place than the England he had idolized. He proved to be as much an oddity in England as he had been in India: the English—

who, unlike the bulk of his countrymen, respected him—did not understand his unique combination of proud “Indianness” coupled with a deep nostalgia for the past glory of the British Empire. By the same token, Chaudhuri could not accept the metamorphosis that the English had undergone in the years since the decline of the empire, and he was appalled by their total lack of commitment to the values that he believed had once made England a great nation. … He received an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford in 1990 and an honorary CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) from

Queen Elizabeth II in 1992.“ ***** We get back to the beginning of our search and read again those remarkable lines handed down by Max Müller M.A. in 1859 that summarise precisely the prevailing Modern History of Human Culture in a nutshell. This Modern History of Human Culture is not erroneous or incorrect. It is deliberately faked by Max Müller. We have checked in the printed literature published before 1859. There are no evidences on which this history could be based. We have checked the relevant literature after 1859. None of the aspects of this history has been questioned by the succeeding

generations of “scholars” belonging to the wonder that is this European Christian culture. Max Müller has been credited for his swindles as “Scholar Extraordinary” in the prevailing modern society and culture. The truth is, as we remember, Max Müller was not a scholar. Even his M.A. is phony. He never acquired scholarship. Even if he wanted to acquire knowledge in the areas of his claim, he would have failed. The reason is simple. We have dealt with all those “respected scholars” only to ascertain that none of them could have taught at any of the universities in his time. They just could not or did not properly learn the Sanskrit language, not

to talk of the Vedic language. Max Müller is exemplary for the culture in the society of the European Christians. We do not blame Max Müller, as we did not blame Salomon Leffmann. But we do know that in all societies there are members whose responsibility is more severe than many others. We do make Max Müller responsible for his deliberate swindles. And we definitely blame the successors of Max Müller. We take liberty to cite one example regarding the distribution of responsibility in society and culture. The case Sir Cyril Ludowic Burt (1883 – 1971) is on record. He was a British educational psychologist. He expired in

great fame. His "twin studies" were questioned thereafter. Sir Cyril Ludowic Burt had had claimed to have observed “Monozygotic Twins Reared Together and Apart” from 1943 to 1966. The findings were published. According to this study Intelligence in human kind is determined 80% by heredity. We won’t get into the discussion what it actually meant for the then educational planning and/or in our days too. Sir Cyril Ludowic Burt was accused of falsifying research data or just inventing research data. It started in 1974 three years after he expired. One of his favourite students, later a close friend, Leslie Spencer Hearnshaw (1907-

1991), who had publicly expressed his anger on the accusations, was selected as his official biographer. All available documents were given to him. Leslie Spencer Hearnshaw published the official biography in 1979. He ascertained after examining the criticisms, the documents, especially the appointment−calendars of Sir Cyril Ludowic Burt, that most of the data from after “World War II“ were fraudulent. This fact entered also Encyclopaedia Britannica late but it entered in 2007. We need many “Leslie Spencer Hearnshaws”. We make Max Müller, the succeeding generations of “scholars” and the

universities responsible for the sell-out of interests of the people in general and of the people in occupied foreign lands in particular unscrupulously. As we know he practiced from his very childhood swindling. He had to tell stories not to get lost in his social predicament for which he was not responsible. But he evolved to a charming and entertaining masterswindler when he was found fit for missions of the British Crown represented by the East India Company in London. He did get chances to escape from this cage. He preferred a privileged life in a golden cage at the cost of truthfulness. Primitively he put all responsibility to his Christian God.

All his life he served in loyalty, fulfilled all missions to the best of his ability and never questioned the missions. Whatever he did, it was the will of his Christian God. His contemporaries and his predecessors were no better. His successors are worse. Again we are back to the wonder that is this society and culture, to the succeeding generations of “scholars” and to the universities. We had set out questioning this foundation of the Modern History of Human Culture handed-down in 1859, equipped with the wisdom of our ancestors, putting forward two simple queries: who is the narrator and how does the narrator come

to know what he is telling about. These two simple and straightforward queries learnt from our ancestors have banged on the essentials of the Era Vasco da Gama. And now the “box of Pandora” is open. Our long journey through the documented primary sources unveils the many “Max Müllers” and also the Era of Vasco da Gama that commenced with the conquest of Constantinople in the 15th century by the Ottomans and with subsequent declaration of the genuine “World War” on the non-Christian world by two European Kingdoms and sanctioned by the Pope. The findings of our search do prove that the Era of Vasco da Gama is

still going strong; an era marked with war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, mercenary, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands by European Christians. Many intellectual prostitutes have labelled this period following the year 1453 with many deceptive names: “Modern Era”, “Age of discoveries”, “Age of enlightments”, etc., etc. to veil the TRUTHS.

CHAPTER 21

EPILOGUE The Era of Vasco da Gama continues Exploitations More intensively We won’t be able to understand, to assess, and to appreciate our present period unless we take time to look back to our past. We cannot take time if we do not get time. Not individually, collectively as human being. We are too busy. We are kept too busy. We are systematically trained to keep ourselves busy.

How are we trained to keep us busy? Are we not debauched by the magic that is called education? Are we not by now readily and willingly enchanted by the magic that is called education? Education within the family, education in the neighbourhood, education in the schools, education in society, education by “entertainments” round the clock, “nationally” and “internationally”, education all-encompassing? This education is invented to qualify us, to make us fit, to sell ourselves in the market, to earn our living, to survive in life more or less decently. So it is propagated. So we are made to believe. And we keep us busy educating us. The

more, the better; the higher, the better. Preferably round the clock. So it is organised in modern societies. Being simple-minded persons we are unable to shallow the term education before we understand the meanings and the contents behind this term. When was the term education coined? Since when? For what purpose? We all talk of and talk about education. But do we really know what it means? Is education just learning by transferring knowledge? Had it been so, why was it necessary to create a new term called education? We know that since time immemorial our ancestors transferred their acquired knowledge to the forthcoming

generations in oral tradition in all walks of life. Obviously excellently. The knowledge was acquired by observing the nature and the society, by mutual exchange of observations and by mutual understandings. An open system of accumulation and of transfer, always open to questions and always open to supplements. The knowledge was thus growing in all walks of life. Nothing was final, nothing was closed. This type of open-end learning is obviously not meant by education. Had it been so, a need of a new label called education would have not arisen. In our days education is propagated as an absolute social need for existence

like food, drink and sleep. Developments of education are being put on the agenda and not reflections on the developments of learning in history. Obviously in all contemporary kingdoms or other formations of ruling entity, we may call these governing instances for convenience states as well. In all states there is a lot of hue and cry on the need of more investments in education for developments and progress. Being simple-minded we are unable overlook the obvious contradiction that, on one hand, there is severe dearth of financial resources for education, on other hand, availability of immense financial resources for the military and war-fares.

We feel, all these “hue and cry” on the need of education for progress is a deceptive package. We are apprehensive that the term education has been coined as an instrument of mind-management of the “have-nots” to protect the interests of the “haves”. The appropriate term for this exercise of education is actually standardised drill and training. All encompassing. The focus has thus been shifted from learning to education. And the general “hue and cry” on the “efforts” for more education is just an instrument to divert attention from the horrendous investments for the military and for the continuous war-fares as instruments to making maximum profit by relentless exploitations.

We obviously do not get time to want to know about the merits and demerits of education, about the merits and demerits of the goals of our education. Not to talk about the syllabus, about the contents in the school books and about the inherent values therein. By now, it is standardised, worldwide. Even a short glance back in our past as human-kind will reveal that education and educational institutions were created after the “claimed” emergence of Moses only. Moses proclaimed, so it said, that God had revealed to Moses him the divine ways of life. Thus the phenomenon called “religion” was born. The divine ways of life that were revealed to Moses by his God were

taught by him, and later by his followers who were taught by Moses to teach others. The major role of religion since its emergence, since Moses, is mindmanagement by making the “others” believe and making others forget whatever they knew from the ancestors. This function, making us believe, has been transferred to education, to divert our attention from “making us to believe”. Are we not put on right tracks by education? And what are the right tracks? How do the teachers know what has to be taught to bring us to the right tracks? With further

questioning we

shall

invariably reach Moses and his God. The system behind education is rather primitive, yet effective. The more comprehensive the control of the “rulers” on existing media, on mindmanagement machineries, the more intensive is the efficiency in making us believe. The role of Moses’ mission, the role of various Churches is transferred to teachers at all walks of life, at all levels as “division of labour” and to schools instead of “Churches”. Worldwide. From its very beginning it is a closed system. It is not learning; it is training. Thomas Babington Macaulay, we know him and his missionary plans, introduced education systematically and spelt out frankly the purpose of his

educational system in occupied India, we recall: “We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions we govern; a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.”

***** Do we know when a social institution called “school” was established in Christian Europe? Do we know what specifically triggered that a social institution called “school” was needed, conceptualized, factually created and implemented? We are not interested to be fed by “scholarly” misinformation supplied by the projection-acrobats who constantly hammer on our mind: there were “schools” in all ages of human history. We demand hard facts based on documents. We find the first training centres for cadres in the early monasteries. The written-mode of European languages is

older than the social institution called “school”. Was school as school institutionalized before or after Johannes Guttenberg (1395 – 1468)? It was not. Schools as a social institution, aiming to reach as many “have-nots” as possible, have been created in the Era of Vasco da Gama only. Schools, higher schools and universities in Christian Europe have been created as instruments for the War-fares during this Era. We are all involved in these Warfares though only the front combatants are destined to sacrifice their life. They are specifically drilled to kill and/or to be killed. At the fronts they are no more

human beings. The soldiers are simply the last link of killing-machineries. The term “school” has been adopted from the language of the Hellenes. Why was it adopted? What was the specific need of this adoption? The Hellenes knew an institution called σχολή (scholē) in old Greek language, meaning "leisure" and eventually also "that in which leisure is employed". Not actually a school of our time. Isn’t it remarkable? What does it mean? Why was it necessary to borrow a term from the Hellenes and to substitute the original meaning and to relate the term to name a newly created institution for rigorous drill and training?

The term "education" is adopted from the Latin language, from Latin “ēducātiō”. It means “a breeding, a bringing up, a rearing”. This is also related to the Latin term “ēdūcō”. It means “I educate, I train". Is it not extraordinarily remarkable indeed? Is there an explanation for not borrowing “education” also from the Hellenes in old Greek language? Why from Latin? The rest of this aspect we leave to the “scholars” preaching the “Science of Languages” since the 19th century. Prior to Moses there had been “learning”; “centres of learning” as well. Learning is an open system. The learners are exposed to the acquired

knowledge of the ancestors and they are free to collate the handed-down knowledge to their own social practice. Nothing in this process is standardised. Education is a closed system. Education never intended to impart knowledge. Education does not impart knowledge. Generously spoken, education imparts the ability to act, to take actions, to make use of, to behave within the frame of a partial selection of knowledge or of social prejudices. Education drills, trains to act in particular fashion, it does not contribute to the growth of human knowledge on society and on nature. Education gives us a dressing-down to effectively market

blinkers. In effect, education trains us to practice uncritically social behaviour controlled by social norms. Education in our time suffocates, shuts down our natural interest to know about how social norms come into being. Who are benefitted and who are deprived by standard education? Are we educated to know about the key of distribution of goods, to know more and more about the relationships within the society, between societies and more about the interrelationship between society and nature? ***** We do not know exactly since when we as humankind live on this earth. We

imagine that no one will contradict us when we maintain, in no area on our earth, our ancestors ever thought of claiming a part of our earth to be their personal property before the emergence of Moses. The issue of personal possession, of ownership was invented to serve particular interests in contradiction to general interests in society much later. We won’t get involved identifying the culture that was the first to invent this. This is irrelevant while we look back to human history to understand our present. We only take a note of the issue and keep this in mind. We imagine that our earth was already there when our ancestors came into

being. We are always a part within the micro-cosmos of the earth, and the earth as a part of our macro-cosmos, the universe. Nothing on this earth is eternal. Things change. Looking around us we come to conclude that all entities appear at a certain period, remain for a period and then vanish. This knowledge is discovered and not invented. Inventions are constructions of human minds. Discovery is to ascertain what really is in the micro- and macro Cosmos. The exact descriptions of discoveries are knowledge. Accumulation of this knowledge is science. This is straight and simple. We must not enter in our present context

into the necessary reflections: where do the entities come from and where do they go; or when is the beginning and where is the end in our present contexts. We accept this general rule/law: nothing is eternal on the earth. And this is all the more valid for human cultures also. In our understanding the case of human cultures is a special one within the nature on earth. Human being tampers with the rules/laws of the nature to get its own way. This may be the cause of differences in human cultures. We keep this also in mind. There might be no contradiction to our perception that our present age is mainly dominated by the European Christian

culture. It has come into existence, it remains for a time and it will disappear following the general law of nature. The ups and downs during its existence are influenced by us. We all are responsible for our present age, but some of us are more accountable. We do expect as well, there would be no contradiction when we maintain that the biblical calendar on the creation of the “world” is historically and also otherwise incorrect. It has to be incorrect because this history and “history” in general, is handed-down by “historians” who followed their own particular interests as well as the interests of their sponsors. Historians

generally do not disclose their particular interests. And we have learnt: He who has the gold makes the rules. And: He who pays the piper, calls the tune. We may keep this in mind as well in our present context. Nonetheless, looking back to our past we ascertain that there is a caesura in Catholic Christian European history after the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 and a new era begins. The overland route between Western Europe and Asia is lost. The importance of Venice and other ports east of the Iberian Peninsula decreases. The quest for sea routes to India and China begins.

This is the beginning of a special type of world-wide interdependence of different prevailing cultures as a consequence. This Era is still continuing. We are not inclined to be camouflaged by using the many terms like “globalisation” which are deceptive packages, interest-based, invented like many “science subjects” sprouting like mushrooms since the emergence of this Era. These “science subjects” with their terminology, rather their termini-phobia, are contraproductive to the development of science. The objective of science is to describe nature and society in coherence, always as exact as possible. There is no room

for hobby-horses, for creation of ideas, for ideologies within science, for creation of virtual worlds. ***** At the beginning of this Era all valuable goods come to Europe mainly from eastern regions of Europe. Geographical knowledge of the earth is still rudimentary. A vague idea does exist about areas like “India” and “China”. In the quest of sea routes to India and China the Iberian Peninsula has an edge of advantage, though the two Kingdoms, Spain and Portugal, are comparatively poor. But these two Kingdoms possess natural ports in the Atlantic Ocean. They envisage better chances to getting into

wealthier foreign lands on the far sides of the ocean. Greed triggers those undertaking of adventures on the oceans. These two Kingdoms, Spain and Portugal learn by experience that whichever foreign lands they reached, these were far more affluent and wealthy; the people were friendly, curious and peaceful. They were not aggressive or violent. Cutting a lengthier story short, greed for precious metals, precious stones and other reaches tempted the Portuguese Kingdom first to forays, then conquering and occupying coastal regions of northwest Africa, establishing “strongholds” for sailing further and further to the

south. “Prince Henry the Navigator” stands as a marker for this greed. Their vessels are then much smaller than even 200 tons. Yet the vessels are expensive. Resources too. A foray needs investment and planning. The vessels were to carry maximum possible human work-force that is cheap, weapons that are expensive, and provisions up to the first stronghold that are a must. The vessels do not carry goods for “trade”. There is no space. The term trade is also a deceptive package. Trade is not synonymous to exchange of necessities. The term trade is a mask for exchangeterms that are dictated by means of power and violence.

While Christians of Western Europe carry out forays by sea in foreign lands in three continents, in Africa, in the yet unknown continent later named “America” and in Asia, the Christians of Eastern Europe, specially the Kingdom of Russia, expands overland in the European continent and in the east and in the south-east of Asia. This occupation of foreign lands by East-European Christians starts in 1477. The goals and the means are the same. ***** It has not yet been disputed by “scholars” that the early Christians were all equals. Things change with the emergence of churches from the 4th

century onwards. The ruffians, robbers and grabbers become more and more equals than other equals. They become “nobles”, “Counts”, “Kings” “Emperors” by snatching out whatever they could from the fellow Christians and thus establishing their power. The churches are parties in this process and are rewarded by those ruffians, robbers and grabbers for appeasing fellow Christians, creating hopes in them to be rewarded in the Christian Heaven. The formula is primitive but turns out to be effective. The grace of the Christian God is not limitless. One has only to earn a share from the limited grace of God. By this

service, after all, the churches make sure that their functionaries are benefitted for their services to the ruffians, robbers and grabbers; services offered for sale by “religious prostitutes”, so to say. Loudly they propagate their appeal to the “nobles”, “Counts”, “Kings” “Emperors” that they remain “kindhearted”, “merciful” and “human” to their fellow Christians. Those who oppose to these new terms of rule, well, they are made to believe or they have to cope with it. This simple belief in the grace of the Christian God is still going strong, the social injustice as well. Pope Nikolaus V issued the papal bull “Romanus Pontifex” in 1455 giving King

Afonso V of Portugal the licit for forays in foreign lands, to keep all conquered lands. The licit for “trades and conquests” against Muslims and pagans beyond Cape Bojador and further south, but King Afonso V of Portugal was to respect one imaginary line by drawing and establishing from the Arctic pole, namely from the north, to the Antarctic pole, to the south. West of this line is the domain of the Spanish King since Pope Alexander VI issued the papal bull “inter caetera” in 1493. Thus, the Kings of Portugal and Spain get sanction of the Vatican to declare war on the rest of the earth in 1494, pursuing the goal to annex all conquered foreign lands, but not battle against each other. This agreement

is called the “Treaty of Tordesillas”. How can such highhandedly created distribution of interest be propagated by “intellectual prostitutes” of our time as fundaments of “International Law”? What is international and what is law? Are we to believe there is something like “Law” that falls from “heaven”, from the God, as his “testament”, from the European Christian God or from his deputy, the Pope? And since when the term “nation” is created? We shall take another look to “Inter-National Law” in a while. Christopher Columbus has reached land in 1492 on his quest to reach India sailing westwards. For him and for the

“cannon-fodders” on board fortunately; otherwise no one would have known of this rather “idiotic” undertaking. The Portuguese “Prince Henrys” do better. Cape Verde is conquered in 1456, Gulf of Guinea in 1460, Gold Coast in 1471, Congo Estuary in 1482. Africa is rich. The Muslim Arabs are engaged in exploiting Africa via land routes. We recall, the Muslim Arabs do acknowledge being of the same breed like the “Children of Moses” and the Children of Jewish Abraham. The Portuguese Christians start from coastal “strongholds”. Building stronghold means: landing, war, robbery, land grabbing, leave behind as much

man power as possible, load vessels with booty and slaves, then return and repeat the same exercise. This exercise is practiced all over by the European Christians, thus the beginning the Era of Vasco da Gama and not an Era that could be characterized by Christopher Columbus. The contract between the Spanish King and Christopher Columbus is exemplary. On his success he was to become Admiral and Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands, 10% of all the revenues, the option of buying one-eighth interest in any commercial venture and receive one-eighth of the whole profits. Even at this stage, the

spread of Christianity in foreign lands does not play any role, as it did never play a role in Crusades. The Crusades were forays. Missions come later as effective cover to make fellow Christians believe that they were not just cannon-fodder. They were to believe that they were mainly serving the Christian God by war, robbing, raping and killing the “pagans” and the Muslims. Conversion as an additional instrument of manipulation comes much later. Terms of investments, contracts and profit rates are kept away from those fellow Christians who were to risk their life for those fellow Christians who are

already blessed by the benevolent Christian God. They invest resources and send out the “Christopher Columbus(es)” for “discoveries” to serve the Christianity as a whole. Who will think in this context of Christians exploiting their fellow Christians? The exploited “fellow Christians” have not yet realized that their poverty is directly related to the riches of their “Christian Kings”. Even the question has not been raised how kings become kings and wealthy, and how the poor people become poor and poorer. In the beginning the Christians were all equals, isn’t it? In comparison to Christopher Columbus

the Portuguese Vasco da Gama, also as an example, knows a little more of geography. The fleet under him ultimately reaches Calicut, South of India, on 20 May 1498 after months, touching one African stronghold to the next, taking provisions on board by forays around the cape up to Mozambique. Calicut (Kozhikode) is a densely populated centre for exchange of goods, benefitted by natural currents and winds of the ocean. Arab and Chinese merchants are already busy there. On his arrival there Vasco da Gama sells himself as royal ambassador of the Portuguese Kingdom and is received with traditional hospitality. His simple “presents” do not impress the King of

Calicut. He does not have Gold and Silver, has practically nothing to “trade” with. Vasco da Gama manages to get away from Calicut after capturing tens of local people as slaves and sails northwards along the coast. He halts at a solitary place near Goa, stays there to start building the first Portuguese “stronghold” in Bharatavarsa. The same exercise follows: war, robbery, land grabbing, leaving behind as much man power as possible at the “stronghold” with all weapons, load empty vessels with booty, board slave-work-force needed for sailing and then return. This procedure is well disguised by

European Christian “scholars” as “The age of discoveries”. Vasco da Gama returns in 1499 with his booties, slaves inclusive that are worth “sixty times the cost of the whole foray. He is also well rewarded”. He repeats his discovery and other “Vasco da Gamas” will follow and continue “European-Christian-“discoveries”. This exercise is repeated at a yearly rhythm determined by the winds and the ocean-currents. In 1510 the Muslim Kingdom of Goa is then grabbed and Portugal keeps the occupied areas there for 450 years for sustained exploitations. *****

The “bipolar world” of the Portuguese and of the Spaniards is gradually snatched away by British, Dutch, French, Scottish and some other minor pirates and robbers sent out in this gruesome business of war-fares occupying foreign lands, sanctioned and financed by their respective Kingdoms and Churches. The French start in 1555, the Britons in 1578 and the Dutch in 1594 as major “players”. They make wars at four fronts: at home in Europe to weaken the other European Christian Kingdoms, on Seas they capture vessels of each others’, in the foreign snatch away each others’ occupation and occupy more and more.

In 1588 the English defeat the Spanish armada. This is the beginning of the end of the monopoly held by the Iberian Peninsula. The new naval powers begin attacking the Portuguese “strongholds” in India. The same procedure continued amongst the new actors. All of them are guilty of all war crimes, of robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained exploitation at “home” and of foreign lands. All of them veil their crimes as “discoveries” to begin with. This happens in all three continents in an increasingly efficient manner. These European Kingdoms do always fight to rob land and wealth of others, first at

home, then in foreign lands. They divide foreign lands amongst themselves setting new arbitrary territorial order and establish their “Empires”. They call these settlements “treaties” and claim to have laid foundations of “International Laws”. Russia restricts its crime to Europe and Asia only. These European Christian occupants-and-heirs do possess the audacity to campaign for “International Law” in our days while they continue sustained occupations and exploitations. The race in this crime is ultimately won by the British Kingdom in the second half of the 18th century. The “British Empire” becomes the largest after it becomes the United Kingdom, and

Portuguese Kingdom becomes the smallest amongst the major players. Economically London turns out to be the monopole of economic power. The Era of Vasco da Gama is thus consolidated and the gruesome processes are deliberately and effectively veiled with many different labels by European Christian “intellectual prostitutes”. They are creative in offering their services. This whole gruesome process that continues more intensively than ever has been trimmed and dressed up as the emergence of a new “historical period” named “colonization” that begins in the 18th century. These war-criminals and robbers claim to have brought “civilization” to others founding

“International Laws” to veil continued barbaric machinations.

their

An army of mind-managers are trained and dressed as “scholars” in so-called universities to propagate this “new historical age” labelled even as “an age of enlightment”. These universityscholars bring their services more efficiently than that of the padres trained by European Christian churches. The purpose is obvious. The crimes committed by the European Christian kingdoms from the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama have to be effectively veiled, if not completely covered. These kingdoms continue committing the same crimes of war,

shunning off all of their accountability and responsibility for their crimes committed in the past. The label “colonization” is as deceptive package as their science subjects sprouting like mushrooms. It is created by well-paid justifiers to propagate, to make us believe that there is neither a need nor any benefit in looking back. Whatever has happened has happened. Let us forget our past collectively. We cannot set back the clock. Moreover all these would not have happened, had it not been God’s will. God is responsible for all that has happened. This unutterable pharisaic veiling is rather successfully accomplished by the trinity

of ruling Kingdoms, Christian Churches and European Universities. European Christians never knew immorality, they practice immorality. What can they do against God’s will? What can be done? God? Who has ever discovered “God”? ***** Where genocides are practiced, where the occupied people are not enslaved, there, after completing looting, manpower is needed to expedite booties and exploit the natural resource of occupied foreign lands. This is the moment of realisation that their primitive impulse of “killing and looting” is short-sighted. This is the moment when the need of imported work-force is felt. There are

not so many European Christians at disposal that is needed for intensive and extensive exploitation of vast occupied areas. Immigrations alone do not substitute the killed. They remember of slaves as cheap work-force. Slaves are to be captured and imported from other occupied areas. This is then being done brutally. Rather primitively, but effectively. This happens in two continents. In the continent stretching from today’s Alaska to the South Pole named “America” and in “Australia” including “New Zeeland”. Once the foreign occupation is consolidated, when the accumulated wealth in the areas of occupation is

transferred to Europe and the fundament is laid for sustained exploitations getting enough supply of slaves, the greed of the front-occupants tends to win the day. Why should the fruits of their toil be sent to their Kings? They are now independent of any additional input of war materials or of slaves from the European Kingdoms. They possess now enough robbed resources to make cash payments to buy whatever they needed. These occupants declare the occupied lands to be theirs’ own and come after years of controversies to different adjustments with the respective Kingdoms. There is one special case, today’s “United States of America”. There, there

were battles and wars for years resulting into a formal declaration of independence from the crown that is being celebrated by the Anglo-Saxonoccupants as the battle for “Independence”. It is an outright swindle that goes strong also in our days, thanks to “scholars” and “universities” and Christian Churches. On top of that, a right of permanent occupation of foreign lands by European Christians is postulated and implemented up to our days. This permanent occupation of foreign lands by force is being declared and propagated to be a major constituent part of “International Law”. The hard fact remains. In contrary to the

Portuguese occupation of Goa in Asia that ends after 450 years the other European Christians continue their occupation in two continents and thereby operate sustained exploitation of African and Asian continents. In our day this “International Law” is practiced by the State of Israel with complete support of the European Christians and of the United Nations dominated by the AngloSaxons against the people of Palestine. Israel has been driving off Palestinians from their homes in the territory of the State of Israel, occupying more and more lands of the Palestinians and annexing these territories to the State of Israel. This state has created a large

“concentration camp” called Gaza-strip. It has about 360 sq km, slightly larger than the City of Munich and has absolutely no exit. Palestinians there in Gaza-strip are not killed by application of poisonous gas as in Nazi-Germany during their reign of “thousand years”, but by systematic bombings and starvations. European Christians and the United Nations represented by its General-Secretary declare these crimes of the State of Israel conforming to the “International Laws”. This is the face of the Era of Vasco da Gama today, as ugly and as pharisaic as ever. ***** In all occupied foreign areas the people

are robbed of their language and their culture. We have exemplarily documented in previous chapters how the language called Sanskrit is robbed to create a language named Sanskrit. This happens with all non-European languages. Libraries everywhere are filled by printed products almost exclusively in European Christian languages written by European Christian “scholars”. European museums are fully packed with robbed artefacts and subject-matters. European Christian languages and culture are enforced in all occupied foreign areas. The covering label has always been “education”. Education is propagated as “progress”, even before the mind-management-

Industry of our time created the many more deceptive packages for manipulations. In Africa, in Australia and in New Zealand this happens thoroughly as well. In all occupied foreign areas the people are robbed of their ways and means of production and of the outlets of their products, within and outside their reach. All economic activities of the European Christian occupants are designed to serve solely their interests. The people are impoverished to the level of physical survival. “Vasco da Gama and Heirs” are at this stage a little more far-sighted knowing that indiscriminate killing of people in wars and forays is more

expensive than to feed them and force them to “work”. The occupants’ posterity has learnt the lesson that genocide does not pay in the long run, yet genocide is practiced in our days too. The occupants’ posterity has learnt even the lesson that sick and weak slaves are less worth in the longer run. Yet children die of hunger on one hand, and grains and other foodstuffs are destroyed to make higher profits in the markets on other hand, in our days too. A balance between “maximum sucking out” and “optimal exploitation” is tried out since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama and this exercise is deceptively labelled as “division of labour” in our days.

The beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama is additionally marked as transition of power and wealth from the “feudal” to the “bourgeois” class, from the landholders to the “merchants”, “manufacturers”, and “professionals”. This is the process that is continuing in our days. The much-hailed “French Revolution” is not even worth of a footnote in this process of redistribution of wealth between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in the whole world. The more-hailed “American Revolution” is worth of a footnote because it marks a new quality in human history. “American Revolution” has become the trade-mark of foreign occupation committing

genocides, declaring occupied lands as their own, importing “slaves” in all shades from foreign areas and propagating this process as not only “legitimate”, but also to be fully in accordance with “International Laws”. This has happened in the whole of the “American Continent”, in “Australia” and in “New Zealand” as we must recall. Should any of the contemporary state would object to this claim, it is being branded a “terrorist state”. We shall get back to these two aspects, of “International Law” and of “slaves” channelized by “head-hunters” in a little while. The formula applied thereby from the

beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama is coarsely simple. Generate primary materials in the occupied areas, transport these to “homelands”, import as many finished products as possible for sales in the occupied foreign areas and sell them to the producers of primary materials. These people have to produce more, to work more, and thereby earn less and lesser. To produce more these people have to buy “chemicals” and machines from their occupants. The price is dictated by the sellers. Both “buyers’ prices” and “sellers’ prices” are fixed by the exploiters. The “science-subject Economics” is yet to be coined. This process is deceptively labelled as

“terms of trade”, as if the “terms” are not constructed and dictated, as if the prices are almost fall-outs from the heaven. This heaven is called “market”. European Christians just keep foreign lands occupied and dominate our earth from the second half of the 18th century. These criminal acts, that mark the consolidated Era of Vasco da Gama, is now cleverly renamed as the “Colonial Age”, as the period of “colonialism” and “imperialism”, subtly suggesting that the criminal and cruel Era of Vasco da Gama as such is at last over and a new more human age has emerged. The hard fact is, the whole of the 19th

century is nothing else than a period of consolidation of the gruesome Era of Vasco da Gama that is marked with severe war on the non-EuropeanChristian-world, robbery of wealth of the non-Christian foreign lands and sustained exploitation of these lands and people and all that goes with it. “Intellectual prostitutes” are recruited from all over the world and are kept by the rulers to coin many “names” as different labels dividing deceptively a de facto continuous process of violence and of wars to put us on blind tracks, on cul-de sac, and also to shun off all accountabilities and responsibilities for their crimes and thus also to avoid the justified and rightful claims of

restitution and/or of return by value. Claims of restitution and/or of return by value have yet to be put on the agenda. That could be an acceptable beginning of International Laws. The “intellectual prostitutes” veil also the process of concentration of powers by means of wars in Europe and as a result of these wars some European Kingdoms becoming “Empires” some vanishing. Thereafter, the “empires” are engaged in continuous war-fares to weaken potential challengers of the “hunting grounds” in foreign areas. There war-fares are permanent as well. This continuous flow of the world-widewar has quite naturally its ups and

downs, its “high and low tides”. It could be acceptable that these “ups” and the “downs” of this continuous flow would be differentiated, for example, in “active war-periods” while violent killings and murders take place and in “dormant warperiods” while the winners collect the booties and profits of active killings and of lootings and invest resources in inventing more murderous weapons for the next active war-period. But to render labels like “war-periods and in “peace-periods” as it is being done so far by the “intellectual prostitutes” placed also in all sorts of educational institutions, is more than a crude primitive effort. And it is

absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable why only at two occasions, only two “ups”, in the 20th century should be declared as “World Wars”. Are we to make believe that the continuous world-wide-wars declared on the non-Christian world during the Era of Vasco da Gama had ended before the “World War I” begun? Should the “World War I” indicate a caesura in the world history breaking the continuity? “Intellectual prostitutes” shamelessly serve to build up exactly this cover-up. They veil also the historical truth that all war-fares since the 16th century till our days have its origin in Europe. European

Christian rulers started killing European Christians even quite early: earlier than the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama. We refer to the period between the 4th and the 15th centuries. We must not spread out all those fanatic gruesome “Christians killings Christians” in Europe in this context. “Intellectual prostitutes” seem not to know what shame is. They not only construct plausible and marketable caesuras in the flow of developments (history) since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama, but concentrate and limit their “scholarly services” on the roles of a few main “actors” and on few incidents only, as if the wars could be

looked into as a set of many different dramas on a stage distributing responsibilities, failures, guilt and ignorance on various actors referring to selected incidents. The selection of actors and incidents are arbitrary. They flood the ground of truth with books telling different entertaining stories on misunderstandings or wrongful assessments of a given situation by the principle actors leading to the unfortunate “mishaps”, the wonder that were called the “World Wars” of the 20th century killing millions of people who not only lost their life. They create virtual realities based on selective, often faked, documents

depending on where the money for their wonder some exercises came from. There is a boom of lectures, articles in all sorts of publications, panel discussions and electronic mediafeatures in 2014, celebrating the centenary of the “World War I”. We withdraw “celebrating” as a weak characterization. It is a big business and an effective cover of truths. These floods of books and the “staged-events” tell stories amounting to befooling caricatures of reality. Exemplarily: the “World War I” would not have occurred or could have been prevented if a few of the crucial actors would have the intelligence of that particular story-

teller. As ill luck would have it, those actors did not only possess the intelligence, they were gambler too. Those actors just gambled like in a casino, where some win and many more lose. Were not millions of soldiers and civilians killed? Is this not more than hypocrisy? Dose this not reveal one of the major instruments of covering truths? Inaugurate many marketplaces for university-trained-“Intellectual prostitutes” to line up. Innovate scopes for earning, some extra-money by concocting sellable entertaining fantastic stories related to remote historical issues. This exercise functions like a

double-edged sword at least. It cuts off historical truths and it diverts eventual attention of the consumers of media from the crimes against the humanity currently committed. Is there not hue and cry of a “World War III” caused by Wladimir Wladimirowitsch Putin in Ukraine? Who are the other parties of the forthcoming “World War III”? The State of Israel eventually? We withdraw our acidic-sarcasm. ***** We take a close look on the so-called World War I. The dominance of the Empires of Russia, France and Great Britain in the main were being challenged by the German Empire, by

the Austro-Hungarian Empire and by the Ottoman Empire. All these Empires but one, the Ottoman Empire, were nothing else than European Christian “Kingdoms flocking together” ever since the Vatican, Portugal and Spain declared the World War on the rest of the world. A vast number of wars were launched thereafter between European Christian “Kingdoms” to secure control of the hunting grounds in all other continents. When we write “a vast number of wars” we mean it. “Hundreds” would be a little exaggerated. Instead of following the practice of “European Christian scholars”, counting the wars and putting them in numbers, we maintain that ever

since the declaration of the World War in the 15th century all subsequent wars were triggered by the greed of the European Christian Kingdoms for forays in other continents. It is no different in our days. Naval activities from the 17th century through to the 19th century of the Ottoman Empire, of the AustroHungarian Empire and of the German Empire endangered in the main the dominance of the Empires of Russia, France and Great Britain in all continents. The declared first and only World War on the rest of the nonChristians has never come to an end. In this World War there had necessarily

been different tides in the continuous flow. The roots of all war-fares that have followed till our time are in the 15th century. We would like to add one aspect that has been kept out altogether from the mainstream consciousness. We put it in a question. What would have happened with the booming highly profitable production of weapons, especially since the 18th century, if there would be no chance to make use of those weapons? In a little while we shall get back to this aspect. The “main-stream-historians” belonging to “the wonder that is this culture” do

not know even how to name these two blocks as “parties” of the high tide of the war in the beginning of the 20th century. And they produce enough “hot air” concealing their embarrassment while they willingly serve the victorious powers. They defeated powers do not have the bargaining resources to fulfil demands of “intellectual prostitutes”. These “historians” name the Empires of Russia, France and Great Britain as “Allied Powers” holding occupied foreign lands and the other battling party as “Central Powers” allied to extend their occupation of foreign lands in other continents. The term “Allied Powers” indicate the

shameless partisanship of their “science” as well: they make propaganda in favour of the AngloSaxons, who are winning continuously since the 17th century and wins this high tide of the war as well. The AngloSaxons are in a far better position to hire services of these “intellectual prostitutes” at opulent rates. Thus the real motif of the massacre is successfully suffocated by coining many deceptive “terms” like alliances, militarism, nationalism, fatherland, etc. covering the ground of the Era of Vasco da Gama, i.e. ensuring sustained worldwide exploitation of the “have-nots” all over and as extensive as possible.

A real search for the cause of this hightide in the beginning of the 20th century would have revealed that all the time the European Christian Kingdoms were battling each other in the race of robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained exploitation of people at home and later, since the 16th century, also in foreign lands. Those many Kingdoms joining this race rather late were consolidated as well in few empires to battle against the established empires to conquer additional hunting grounds. Even these universitytrained-“intellectual prostitutes” would have noticed the booming momentum of

inventions and production of weapons along with the establishment of “schools” and “education” to meet the demand of “human-cannon-fodder” to play this gruesome game of ”buccaneering”. Do we know how many European Christians were killed before the Era of Vasco da Gama in the race of robbery, rape, murder, genocide and sustained exploitation of the people to establish “Royalties and Kingdoms”? Do we know how many European Christians and non-Christians were killed after the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama in the race of robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained

exploitation of people to consolidate the reign of “Royalties and Kingdoms”? We may find some indications to this specific question from Filippo Sassetti (We remember him as the sole honest person in the illustrious gallery of European Christian Scholars). Only one third of the Portuguese peasants recruited as ruffians arrived in Bharatavarsa. How many of them were killed in wars there and how many of them did actually return? From the catholic track of the inhuman forays we know also that the Vatican adopted the cheaper sea-route of Vasco da Gama although more than two-third of the Padres died on the voyage. But the

booty was transferred both for the Churches and for “Royalties, Kingdoms and Merchants” safely. We take liberty and apologise in advance to speculate once. The university-trained-“intellectual prostitutes” won’t be able to give us exact figures on killings. They never put these or similar questions and never search for anything if these are not in the interests even of their eventual future clients. Who could tell us, just taking a few examples, how many innocent people were deliberately killed by the atom bombs in Japan, by “agent orange” in Vietnam, by uranium-enriched bombs in “Yugoslavia”, Iraq and Afghanistan? How many innocent people died of the

inevitable consequential effects of the poisons spread by bombings? And how many innocent Palestinian people are being deliberately killed since 1948 by the State of Israel and its allies? Instead we are awfully reminded of “humanism”, “Justice”, “freedom” “democracy”, and so on. We wonder how these universitytrained-“intellectual prostitutes” of our time, being kept in the Might-MediaManipulation-industrial-complex, digest this amount of dishonesty, hypocrisy, inhumanity and immorality. The sole purpose of inventing and producing weapons is killing. Weapons won’t be invented if the inventors won’t

be able to sell their skills and make money. The producers make money. The buyers of weapons make money. The successful uses of weapons bring money. Winning wars bring money. A war is never a mishap. In short runs as well as in long runs. These are hard facts. It does not make any difference whether we take notice of these facts or not, whether we deny them or not. These are truths. Is there a difference between killing and murder? We take a note of this question. Weapons carried by the “Vasco da Gamas” were for War, for murdering people in foreign lands to rob their wealth. Before resources are invested in

the manufactures of weapons war plans are already made. Since the 16th century hundreds of wars have taken place. In all these wars European Christians were and are actively involved. Along with these wars go also the “innovations”, production, and business with weapons. We can imagine the links of the whole chain. Are all those engaged in the manufacture of weapons not murderer? And what about the “intellectual prostitutes”? We take a note of these of our questions also. Weapons are never manufactured without a “market” for weapons. The buyers in this market are definitely murderer, isn’t it? And manufacturing factories of weapons develop their own

dynamics along with continuous war plans. They improve the range and speed of killing devices. The quality of wars changes with these developments. The “man” to “man” killings are vanishing rapidly. We won’t run into a historical study on the developments of all sorts of killing devices through ages. But we take liberty to express our understanding of wars and all that is interlinked with wars. Wars are cold-blooded murder. Soldiers are at the lowest link in this business of murder. Soldiers are victims. Soldiers sell their body like prostitutes for physical survival. At times they also sell their soul for causes which are not their own. At the upper end of this

murder-business are the rulers, “entrepreneurs” and those so-called scientists inventing new devices of mass-murder. We must not get into to all the intermediate agencies linking these two ends. But we would like to add that the rulers and those so-called scientists inventing new devices of mass-murder are almost never victims in these murderous undertakings called wars. They are more cold-blooded distantkillers than the soldiers at the bottom. Is it not absolutely incomprehensible that cold-blooded mass-murder has not been outlawed like individual murder? Mafiabosses are generally convicted, why not

the rulers? Is it comprehensible that instead of condemnation the Christian Churches continue to bless and sanction mass-murder since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama? How do the “Christian-souls” take it? We get back to our close look on the socalled World War I. We have noted that since the invention of cannons man-toman-killing is continuously substituted by mass killings. Howitzers, invented in Sweden towards the end of the 17th century, are since then industrially produced in different size and types in all European Christian Kingdoms and Empires. These are produced to kill human beings more indiscriminately.

Both Infantry and Navy make use of them. All Kingdoms and Empires were engaged developing and using Chemical-weapons to kill more indiscriminately towards the end of the 19th century leading to a first endeavour in 1899 to prohibit chemical weapons; prohibit chemical weapons only. What does this endeavour of a prohibition mean in reality? Well! Alfred Bernhard Nobel (1833 – 1896), the Swedish chemist, engineer, innovator, and armaments manufacturer, held 350 different patents, dynamite being the most famous, established the most prestigious “Nobel Prizes” in

1895. The extent of murderous weaponinventions and their industrial productions are exemplified also by the career of Fritz Haber (1868 – 1934), the German chemist, exemplarily. Though socially discriminated as being of Jewish origin he plays a major role in the development of chemical warfare in “World War I” for the German empire in “national interest” as it has been put to us. In spite of the Hague Convention of 1907 which was also signed by the German empire. Well! Fritz Haber gets the Nobel-award in 1918. Does it indicate something? Future Nobellaureates James Franck, Gustav Hertz,

and Otto Hahn were teamed “as gas troops in Haber's unit”. What does it indicate? We are reminded of Barack Obama defeating the Republican nominee John McCain in the general election in “USA”, and inaugurated as its president on January 20, 2009. Nine months after his election, Barack Obama is named getting the “Nobel Peace Prize”. Yes, for peace. And Barack Obama takes the prize. We shall get back to him in a little while. The German “Kaiser” also decorates Fritz Haber. When the Nazis in Germany appear on the scene in 1933, he moves to Cambridge, England. After a few months there he accepts an offer to

become the director at the Sieff Research Institute in Rehovot, Palestine. He dies in 1934. Biological warfare remains insignificant in that high tide of the continuous wars on non-Christians, named the “World War I” whatever might have been the reason. Germs as weapons are known. Balloons, Zeppelin and Aeroplanes are already constituted to be used for “biological weapons” as well in “World War I”. Air-Military-Forces beside Infantry and Navy are ready. What does it indicate? “Intellectual prostitutes” of all branches of “Science and Technology” are engaged in the preparation of wars. The

terms are also created like alliances, militarism, nationalism, etc. to prepare the ground to appease emotionally the millions of “have-not-fellow-Christians” that they had to sacrifice their children’s life for a “national interest”. The interests of the ruling kingdoms securing domination in foreign lands in other continents are skilfully veiled. Spread of Christianity as a cause for sacrifices gets a sister: “national interest”. Later another sister will join soon in the campaigns: “Spread of Democracy” to ensure “freedom”, “justice” and “humanism”. It is not worth of a footnote that the Kingdoms of Spain, Netherlands and

Scandinavia had remained aloof in the “World War I”. It must not be specifically mentioned that those European Christians in the mask of being indigenous people belonging to “Australia”, “Canada”, “Newfoundland”, “New Zealand”, “South Africa” and “United States of America” join the “Allied Powers”. In spite of all these camouflages the hard fact remains that in this so-called World War I, European Christians battled against each other in their home land as well as in foreign lands under their control and killed a few millions of soldiers and several millions of civilians indiscriminately.

It is indeed worth to note that a NonChristian Kingdom in East Asia, Japan, emerges as an imperial power taking advantage of the weakness of the Germans in the Pacific and joins the “Allied Powers”. Japan also lacks in raw-material resources for its “industrial products” like those Kingdoms in Europe. Thus Japan becomes also a “major player” of the Era of Vasco da Gama committing all the crimes in the Asian-Pacific area like all European-Christian-“major players”. All the crimes. In 1917 the first “proletarian revolution” takes place in Russia. The German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman

Empires cease to exist when this “up” of the continuous war “ends”, i.e. when it takes a normal flow. The map of Europe is redrawn as several “independent nations” are created by the victorious powers. Divide and rule. In other continents as well. All European Kingdoms do lose power in terms of economic strength in this hot-killingsaftermath. Those European Christians, deceptively called “US-Americans”, had declared war on the German Empire as late as in April 1917 and wins the most in this war. The economic monopoly of London shifts to New York. ***** Exploitation of people, of own or of

foreign lands gets a new mask to cover the ugly face of the Era of Vasco da Gama called “Industrialisation”. The “United States” and the “United Kingdom” chalk out the plan of creating the “League of Nations” during the war years and then install it in 1919, having a General Assembly (representing all member states), an Executive Council (permanent membership limited to major powers only), and a permanent secretariat. We remember the aftermath of the “World War II”. We refer to our Chapter Twenty. Member states in the “League of Nations” are expected to “respect and preserve as against external

aggression” the territorial integrity of other members, and to disarm the aggressors “to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.” We are really in the beginning of the 20th century. We take liberty to look a little ahead and note that we unmistakeably find in the “League of Nations” the root of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) “philosophy” that was put in the air after the “World War II”. Again, as we remember our Chapter Twenty, that only the “United States” and the “United Kingdom” will chalk out and install NATO in 1948. Is it not an overt Act of Aggression in advance? Who

should have been the “external aggressors”? We get back to the “League of Nations”. A “Permanent Court of International Justice”, is also created and attached to the “League of Nations” in 1922. When this court will cease to exist after “a resolution by the League of Nations on 18 April 1946” it will be reborn as “the International Court of Justice”. It is worth of a footnote that the “United States of America” remains beyond the jurisdiction of both of these “International Courts”. Does it indicate something? What does it indicate? The “League of Nations” has already a champion before the “games” begin. The

League has to follow all interests of the champion keeping all resources of the League in the hands of the champion. The champion is the “United States of America”. The “text of Covenant is read by the US President in Paris on February 14, 1919”. Four fundamental speeches follow: by the “US”-Senator Henry Cabot Lodge on 28.02.19, by “US”-Senator Philander C. Knox on 01.03.19, both in Washington, by the former “US”-President William Howard Taft and by “US”-President Woodrow Wilson on 04.03.19 in New York. The “USA” does not ratify the Text of Covenant, and thus does not become a member of the “League of Nations”. What does it indicate? Woodrow Wilson

gets the Noble Award for Peace in 1919. Yes, the Noble Award for Peace! The “League of Nations” does not alter anything in the continuous flow of the Era of Vasco da Gama. Modes of war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide get their ugly faces a little lifted by the creation of “international institutions”, under the patronage of the ”League of Nations”. Economic exploitation is intensified under the new champion, the “USA”, the Alpha-Wolf, who is followed by the permanent members of the Executive Council. We are reminded of the wisdom of our ancestors: He who has the gold makes the rules. And: He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

The “League of Nations”, later the “United Nations”, their diverse “underorganisations and “treaties between leading European Christian rulers” were and are all merely instruments for domination over others who are extensively exploited. The “mainstream-“scholars” belonging to the wonder that is this prevailing culture do never look back as a matter of principle. They keep themselves busy with the “present” and speculate on the “future”. They sell their capability to throwing and spreading rubbish, layers after layers, diligently covering the ugly marks of the Era of Vasco da Gama and are well rewarded for their services. The occupied areas remain occupied

areas. It does not make any difference how the borders of the arbitrarily created “states” are. The exploitation of the people continues within the “states” of the exploiters as well. There is an exceptional case: the fall of the Russian Empire and the first “proletarian revolution” in 1917 there. ***** The “bourgeois” class of the European Christians is well established under the leadership of the “USA” following the “World-War I”. Karl Marx (1818 −1883), a first generation “protestant“scion of a traditional Jewish family, evolves to a notable philosopher and social activist. In contrary to other

European Christian philosophers he takes note of the crimes committed by the “Vasco da Gamas” and their heirs, but subsumes the crimes as instruments to a rather shallow unilateral development-theory of “the human society”. He sees the vast majority of exploited people and focuses his studies on the role of Christian Religion in manipulating the people not only in Europe. His sharp analysis of “Capitalism” in Europe is based mainly on his first-hand experiences and observations in Europe. But his analysis of “colonialism, imperialism, etc.” is based on secondary British sources. He fails to see the continuous process of development from the 16th century up to

his time in regard to sustained occupation and exploitation of foreign lands. He believed in a forthcoming international proletarian revolution that would dismantle “colonialism, imperialism, etc.” He does not succeed to emancipate his thoughts from his Jewish-Christian values. He classifies religion only as opium for the “people”. “Marxist” revolutionaries take over the “remainder” of the Russian Empire creating the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which is a threat for the “bourgeois” class. Thus the European Christians gets an additional assignment in the Era of Vasco da Gama: protect the “bourgeois” class

interests, fight the proletarian movements in general and fight the Soviet Union in particular by all means. The “White Army” aided by Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and the “United States of America” fight in Siberia, Ukraine, and Crimea. They are defeated by the Red Army by 1923. Nonetheless the Soviet Union joins the “League of Nations” as a permanent member of the Executive Council in 1934 as one of the great powers. “USA” continued its dominant role also as a “Non-Member” of the “League of Nations”. In 1937 USSR is expelled from the “League of Nations”. Germany

evolving

to

the

Weimar

Republic joins the “League of Nations” in 1926 and withdraws in 1933. The Kingdom of Italy being a permanent Member in the Executive Council of the “League of Nations” from the very beginning withdraws in 1937. These are only a few peaks of an “iceberg” which have been defined by “modern historians” belonging to “the wonder that is this culture” as a period of peace. For them the next high-tide in 1939 is again denoted as unfortunate fallout from some “Casino for gambling”. They also fail to refer that German chemists and physicists were busy producing the atom bomb based on Lise Meitner’s and Otto Hahn’s inventions

since 1934, the Soviet Union since 1940 and those mainly immigrated JewishGerman physicists were making the atom bomb in the “United States of America” in a gigantic project. Not to talk on booming mass production of large range of military equipments and biological and chemical weapons while the “League of Nations” were playing the “peace show”. The next high-tide of the continuous world war started already in 1917, after the first “proletarian revolution”. Even in dating these modern “historians” are incorrect. According to their scholarship the “World War II” begins in 1939. Germany, Italy and Japan at one side against the rest of the earth dominated by

the Anglo-Saxons. We remember: The “League of Nations” is practically obsolete by 1937, when the USSR is expelled. Japan, a “constitutional Monarchy”, lacks natural resources for growth as mentioned earlier and develops plans to establish power in foreign lands with abundant natural resources. Are we not in the years of 1920s? Are we not also in the second half of the 15th century? By the mid-1930s Japan, dominated by its “bourgeois” class, comes closer to Germany and Italy pursuing similar “expansionist” policies. In 1936 Japan gets into a pact with Germany against the Soviet Union, named as “Anti

−Comintern Pact”. Japan invades in 1937 China. The “League of Nations” is practically obsolete. During 1938 and 1939 Japan launches attacks also against Mongolia. At least this could be considered to be the beginning of a to-be-styled as “World War II”. Not so for the European Christians. For their historians it was the invasion of Poland by Adolf Hitler on September 17, 1939 and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and by the United Kingdom was the beginning. Does it indicate something? We remember also that a few weeks earlier, on August 23, 1939 Germany

signs a treaty with the Soviet Union of “non-aggression” in Moscow. They agree to annex territories of their European neighbours, including Poland, Finland and the Baltic states between themselves. Japan signs a “nonaggression” pact in 1941 with the Soviet Union as well. Then, on June 22, 1941 Germany invades the Soviet Union. In December 1941, Japan attacks the “European” territories in the Pacific Ocean, attacks the “United States” in Pearl Harbour on December 7, 1941 and conquers much of the Western Pacific. Japan gains control over Manchuria, Inner-Mongolia, large parts of China, Malaysia, French

Indochina, Dutch East Indies, The Philippines, Burma and a little part of India. At its zenith Germany, Italy and Japan have control over territories that occupied large parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia. On December 8, 1941 the “United States” decides to declare war on Japan. Three days later, on December 11, 1941 Germany declares war on the “USA”. Yet the “USA” enters the war on the west-front, i.e. in Europe on November 8, 1942, only on urgent demands for a western front against Germany by the Soviet Union as an ally. The hard fact behind all these treaties and attacks remain that the world-wide war since

the 16th century never ended. The major participants have to throw their entire economic capabilities behind the war efforts, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources; excepting for the “USA“ that practiced their old strategy to interfere in the war as late as possible, i.e. do the least and gain the maximum profit out of the active-war. Resource-wise the “USA” comes out of the war-crimes in the 40’s as a super-power scoring one of the least causalities of their own. They relied on their killing machineries. Their civil causalities were practically nil. This high-tide, the active-war is also the

beginning of mass killings of innocent civilians indiscriminately and saving the real villains. Tens of Millions of people are victim of this active-war. The estimates are understandably at the lower end of actual killings and the aftermath deaths up to our time. We are reminded of the killings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by dropping atom bombs, so far the most inhuman killings. Do we still remember who invented and dropped those horrible bombs? Were they European Christians? Were those Jewish nuclear-experts making the Atom bombs were less Christians? Europeans they were. We won’t get into a discussion of that “Frankenstein”-aspect

of so-called Natural-Scientists. We are only reminded of H-Bombs, N-Bombs, and of various biological and chemical weapons. The credit of all these inventions does go to the European Christians (in the Soviet Union included) who claim to be the keeper of humanity in our days. But the Anglo-Saxon Christians win the race of developing the most murderous weapons and remain the all time champion in mass-murders of human beings. We must keep in mind that all murderous weapons are created by European Christians only. Yes, all weapons in the Era of Vasco da Gama. Yet, a “state”-wise distribution of killed people in “World War II” tales an

interesting story. The Soviet Union lost around 27 million people including 8.7 million military personnel during the high-tide between 1937 and 1945. One of every four Soviet citizens was killed or wounded in that active war-phase. China lost around 20 million, Germany 6 million, Japan 3 million, United Kingdom a ¼ million and the “USA” a ¼ million. We take a deep breath and reflect over these facts. A second “proletarian revolution” takes place after the end of the “World-War II” in 1949, the taking over of power and wealth by “peasants” and “soldiers” from the “feudal rulers” and from the “bourgeois” classes in China. In Russia

“workers” and “soldiers” took over of power and wealth by from the “Feudal rulers” and from the “bourgeois” classes, we recall. It is worthy to note that moves to dismantle the Era of Vasco da Gama come from areas that suffered the most causality. We must not get into the details that have taken place under the patronage of the “League of Nations”. “United Nations” with all its branches is a slightly redesigned “League of Nations”, all sponsored and controlled by the AngloSaxons, lead by the “United States of America”. We refer again to our Chapter Twenty. In both of these two areas, China and

Soviet Union, the “bourgeois” class is fighting back. We must not get into the stories of Deng Xiaoping and of Michail Sergejewitsch Gorbatschow and their consorts. Not unsurprisingly assisted by “Macaulay’s new class and their heirs” all over the world. This “bourgeois” class can depend on an army of these “intellectual prostitutes” in all “nationstates” created after this active war-fare. Yet, the seeds to free the “proletarian” class, i.e. the “have-nots”, from the Era of Vasco da Gama are seemingly not completely destroyed. The “USA” wins almost the world-wide dominance as the “alpha-wolf” of the Anglo-Saxon-Christians. But the Soviet

Union expands in Europe and challenges successfully the Anglo-Saxon Christian’s hegemony. They continue worldwide wars (in tens), beginning with Greece in 1947 to Afghanistan and recent killings by drone attacks, as spearhead of the “bourgeois” class and with the almost continuous war-fares world-wide and with systematic policy of “encircled isolation” of the Soviet Union, now the much slender “Republic Russia”. ***** War, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands continue strongly, though the methods and techniques are refined and thus

more deceptive. Yet the truth cannot be suppressed forever. Truth is truth. Truth cannot be interpreted differently; not by philosophers, missionaries or “spindoctors”, by none. Truth is simple and uninterruptable. The “intellectual prostitutes” anticipate the law of truth. They compete with each other to innovating veils, covers, masks, setting wrong tracks, making people forgetful and manifold devices to raise their market value. Some “intellectual prostitutes” are not able to suppress or extinct all of their human instincts and do “whistle” at some time. We take liberty to refer as examples to Leslie Hearnshaw, who

exposed Sir Cyril Lodowic Burt, to John Swinton, that doyen of the New York press corps, to Daniel Ellsberg releasing the “Pentagon papers” on Vietnam, to Bradley Edward Manning, releasing videos on inhuman-crimes in Iraq committed by the frontrunner-state for humanity, by the “United States of America”, to Brandon Bryant, that “Drone-warrior” who could not continue as a human-killing-weapon, to Edward Snowden exposing deliberate violations of International Laws, by the “United States of America” represented by the NSA (National Security Agency of the “USA”). Truth is like the nature and its laws.

Truths Truths

cannot be suppressed forever.

are beyond the manipulative range of humankind. This is the reason why the Might-Media-ManipulationIndustry concentrates on blowing so much smoke, propagating and spreading lies and innovating devices of secrecy. Suppressing the truth is not their purpose. They put layer after layer of rubbish to cover truth in all walks of our life. But for this machination techniques and technologies are required. These cannot be operated by robots. And these are never 100 % perfect. They leak. It may take time. But they leak. This is the malice of trying to implement un-natural goals for a long time to hold.

We close this aspect here, but we take liberty referring two rather shallow and uncomplicated examples: “The topsecret Manhattan Project” making the Atom Bomb leaked out. The Soviet Union made the Atom Bomb in 1949, a few years later. The “Internet” was originally a secret military-technology. Now it is used by secret-services to keep watch upon us, but there are “hackers” also, who expose the secretservices using the same technology. Then, there is also the greed for making money. The fundamental method of war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and

sustained exploitation of foreign lands cannot be changed. “Robbery-rapemurder-genocide“ and other gruesome activities have recently been “outsourced” from “public” governments to clandestine private enterprises to implement the most dirty and brutal criminal plans to be kept closed to the public. “Blackwater” stands for them. Of course, all financed by the “public governments”. The only thing is that the “public” does not come to know about all these doings. They operate in darkness, under the shelter of the official armed forces, however, beyond public vigilance. As a rule, ex-military officers run private killing companies like “Blackwater” and earn a lot of public

money. These companies have only one client, the government of a democratic country. Mass-Media-Companies are also privately run companies. We won’t enter into a futile discussion on “private” vs. “state” enterprises. That we leave to “intellectual prostitutes” performing their acrobatics in those “sciencesubjects” created during the Era of Vasco da Gama. Does it matter who execute war, robbery, rape, murder, genocide, recruiting mercenaries, exploitation and sustained exploitation of foreign lands? In our context it does solely matter that all these crimes are committed by European Christians. We

ascertain simply, the truths come out in spite of all veils and covering activities. This is the malice of the objective itself. It is as such rather easy to expose the hidden objectives. We have just made use of our natural curiosity and eagerness to know, i.e. asking questions. Even when we don’t find answers, we try to interpret why there are no answers, and thus we get answers to formulate new questions. We know: no questions, no answers. But: if there are Questions, but no answers, that is absolutely a “no-go”. No answers are answers as well; often no answers are more informative, more precise. Are wars just a “murderous game”?

Weapons and soldiers are needed. Those who plan wars are killers; the constructers of weapons as well. Weapons are costly. Where does the money come from? Soldiers have to be drilled to make them inhuman. Who are the persons developing such drillprograms? It costs time and money. So, we simply ask, are those “states” spending the most in the area of masskilling plans called wars also the spearheads that run the Era of Vasco da Gama? Which are those “states”? Are all those persons involved in the whole process of wars killers as well? In this context we get back to Nobel Peace Prize. We won’t discuss the

merits or demerits of the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee. We refer to Barack Obama who was honoured by this committee only nine months after he was inaugurated as president of “USA”. This was in 2009. We must take a break for digging. We have arrived at a point that elaborates and reveals exemplarily the authentic face of the blond-blue-eyed-whiteChristian culture produced in the Era of Vasco da Gama. Who is this Barack Obama, what do we know about him, what is this Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee and what is the function of the Nobel Peace Prize? *****

Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, as Barack Hussein Obama Jr., son of the student Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936– 1982), a member of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s new class in British Kenya, was then 25 years old. He was married in Kenya, had two children and not divorced. He met some time in 1960 Stanley Ann Dunham (1942–1995), born in Kansas. She had completed her high school in 1960 and took up studies at the University of Hawaii. She came across Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. in a basic Russian language course. They started dating. She became pregnant in November 1960

and dropped out of the University of Hawaii after the fall semester in 1960, while Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. continued his studies. They got married in Wailuku on the Hawaiian island of Maui on February 2, 1961 despite opposition from both parental families. Stanley Ann Dunham, was on August 4, 1961 19 years old when our Barack Obama was born. Her parents were living in Hawaii. In all probability the parents of our Barack Obama were together for a maximum of one year and seven months. We take a note of this looking a little ahead. A month after Barack Obama’s birth, Stanley Ann Dunham took the infant

with her to Seattle, Washington, where she took classes at the University of Washington from September 1961 to June 1962. She returned to Honolulu in the second half of 1962 with the infant and resumed her undergraduate education in January 1963 in the spring semester at the University of Hawaii. In June 1962 Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. had already left Honolulu and begun a graduate fellowship in economics at Harvard University. These circumstances resulted into that Stanley Ann Dunham knew Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. intimately for a about-ayear and a half.

In January 1964, when our Barack Obama was two and half years old Stanley Ann Dunham filed for divorce in Honolulu; Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. did not appear in Honolulu to contest and was divorced in March 1964. Thus our Barack Obama did not have an opportunity to know his Kenyan father. In June 1964, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. met and began dating a 27-year-old Jewish American elementary school teacher Ruth Beatrice Baker, the daughter of a prosperous Lithuanian immigrant to the United States. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya in 1964 after graduating from Harvard. Ruth Beatrice Baker followed him, and

they married 24 December 1964. Stanley Ann Dunham never met Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. after September 1961. Our Barack Obama was 4 years old when her mother married Lolo Soetoro, a Javanese surveyor whom she had met at the East-West Centre, in Hawaii on March 15, 1965. Lolo Soetoro returned to Indonesia in 1966. His mother moved into her parents' house in Honolulu together with him to complete her studies at the University of Hawaii. Barack Obama attended kindergarten from 1966 to 1967 at Noelani Elementary School in Honolulu. In 1967, he and his mother moved to Jakarta to rejoin Lolo Soetoro.

Barack Obama was then six years old. He attended the Indonesian-language Catholic School Santo Fransiskus Asisi (St. Francis of Assisi), Indonesianlanguage spoken, there after the government-run Besuki School, Indonesian-language spoken, till mid1971, for about 4 years. He then moved back to Hawaii to live with his grandparents and attend Punahou School starting in 5th grade. Barack Obama was then going to be ten years old. He had thus only the opportunity to know his Indonesian step-father for about four years. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., Kenya and Africa were for Stanley Ann Dunham and for her son very far off.

On August 15, 1970, Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham had a daughter, Maya Kassandra Soetoro. A year later, in August 1972, she and her daughter moved back to Hawaii to rejoin her son, Barack Obama, and began her graduate study in anthropology at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. She completed her coursework at the University of Hawaii for a M.A. in anthropology in December 1974, and after three years in Hawaii she returned with her daughter to Jakarta in 1975. Barack Obama chose to stay with his grandparents in Hawaii to continue attending Punahou School for high school. Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Ruth

Beatrice Baker had two sons together, separated in 1971, and divorced in 1973. Ruth Beatrice Baker subsequently married a Tanzanian named Ndesandjo and took his surname, as did her sons Mark and David. Mark said in 2009 that our Barack Obama had been abusive to him, to his late brother David, and to his mother. In December 1971, our Barack Obama was visited by Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., his Kenyan father. It was the first and last time our Barack Obama would see his father, who was later killed in a car accident in 1982 in Kenya. Stanley Ann Dunham completed her

coursework at the University of Hawaii for an M.A. in anthropology in December 1974. After three years in Hawaii, she and Maya returned to Jakarta in August 1975. Our Barack Obama chose to stay with his grandparents in Honolulu to continue at Punahou School for his high school years and for his subsequent higher studies in California, New York and Massachusetts. Lolo Soetoro and Stanley Ann Dunham divorced on November 5, 1980; Lolo Soetoro married Erna Kustina in 1980 and had two children, a son, Yusuf Aji Soetoro (born 1981), and daughter, Rahayu Nurmaida Soetoro (born

1987). Lolo Soetoro died, age 52, on March 2, 1987, due to liver failure. For all practical purposes our Barack Obama belongs to the prevailing blondblue-eyed-white-Christian Culture that emerged during the Era of Vasco da Gama, in an occupied foreign land named the “USA” by European Christians. It is too bad for him that he does not have those visible features of the dominating Anglo-Saxons. He is also not offspring of the African slaves, or of those “first generation slaves” mediated by “head-hunters” from all over the world till our days. He does not belong to the “new-class” created by Thomas Babington Macaulay. He is only

Christian without having the physical features: blond-blue-eyed-white. He is not responsible. Yet, he has to compensate his shortcoming. Our Barack Obama has to make extra miles to be accepted by his fellowAnglo-Saxons. In other words, he has to learn to be far more unscrupulous than his fellow-Anglo-Saxons to assert himself in an unscrupulous and hypocritical society. He must have learnt to make 150 % to become a politician extraordinary. We shall look out. We are unable to overlook that the “USA” has a tradition to killing Presidents when they fall short of fulfilling 100 % of expectation.

Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy were killed as Presidents. In 1968, Robert F. Kennedy was killed as a leading Democratic candidate for the presidency and was, appealing particularly to black, Hispanic, and Catholic voters. Barack Obama is obviously making extra miles successfully. We shall keep our eyes wide open. But to market him in 2008/2009 as the first Afro-American President of the “United States of America” is much more than blowing smoke, it is utter swindle. We take an aside to explore the role of elections in a “State” named the “USA”

claiming to practice “democracy”. Democracy is a Hellenic term meaning “rule of the people”. The demand of a “rule of the people” comes up during the Hellenic period in the polis of Athens because the majority of Athenians "had been 'enslaved' to the rich". To overcome this state of social affairs the enslaved majority has to elect its own administration. We won’t get into deliberations on the difficulties implementing this lofty Goal. We rather look into how it is implemented in that “State” named the “USA” claiming to practice “democracy”. In the “Presidential Race” in 2012, for example, the total cost of election was $2,621,415,792. In the “Congressional

Races” the total cost of election was $3,664,141,430. A “USA” Senate seat now costs $10.5 million to win, on average, while US House seat costs, $1.7 million, as stated by the “Federal Elections Commission” in the “USA”. The money does not come from the people. The money is invested by rich people. And we have learnt: He who has the gold makes the rules. All persons elected have to serve the interests of the investors. All persons elected must have proved their ability to veil the investors’ interests elaborately and eloquently. All elected persons are actors, not directors. Directors do not have to have many faces. Actors may

sometimes be on the track assuming that they were acting “independently”. At best the actors anticipate the wishes of the directors and act before the direction reach them. All elected persons in the “USA” have to play many roles following “the rules” of the rich. This state of affairs prevails in all States dominated by European Christians. We get back to our Barack Obama. Those rich “donors” in the background identify him as a convincing actor when he is elected as the “First Black Elected to Head Harvard's Law Review”. Following this event he gets a publishing contract and an advance payment for “a book about race relations, which

evolved into a personal memoir”. The manuscript is published in mid-1995 as Dreams from My Father. We know, he sees his father only once in his life when he was 10 years old. He is dressed to play the “AfroAmerican-Card” building him up for higher missions, as Max Müller was prepared by Thomas Babington Macaulay for higher missions. Barack Obama had already evolved to be a “bad coin”. He is polluted. We read: “Some of his fellow students attending Punahou School later told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Barack Obama was mature for his age as a

high school student and that he sometimes attended parties and other events in order to associate with African American college students and military service people”. We are reminded of the proverb: Once you are polluted, you are polluted forever. Actors on political stage like Barack Obama never come out of pollutions. To write and complete his autobiography without interruptions, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he takes leave for several months. He does not stay at some quiet place in the “USA”, not in Kenya or somewhere else in Africa. He travels with his wife, Michelle, to Bali

in Indonesia for these “several months”. Barack Obama’s polished rhetoric is instrumental in building him up since 1995. The country “USA” is sick not only of George W. Bush. A new smart face with off bit rhetoric is welcome to refresh the image of the country. Liberal talks are patient. He lines up as a shining light. As referred, the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee honours Barack Obama only nine months after he is inaugurated as president of “USA”. This is in 2009. It is a clever practice in the Era of Vasco da Gama to install extra-moneypayments for services propagated as honour for “intellectual prostitutes” of

all types at all levels to intensify competition amongst them. It is an extra gratuity for extra services. The Nobel Prize tops the list of these extragratuities. Is there a need to mentioning specifically that the money spent for this purpose is 100 % tax-free? It is no secret that Barack Obama sells a special idea of peace. He has practically helped to abolish “futurewars” from public awareness by establishing a remarkable idea of “International Laws”. Every state has the right to defend its security. Every state is free to define its needs of security. If it is necessary, to defend this security, kill the foes in any corner of the world.

These cold blooded murders are permitted by his proclaimed International Laws. Every state is free to attack those, so defined, enemies without giving warrants. Just attack the enemy and kill wherever you get hold of the, so self-defined, enemies. International Laws? Laws? Barack Obama is the propagator of the doctrine: kill your enemies wherever you can. Own soldiers are not endangered. “Soldiers” are only to operate “joy-sticks” guiding the drones to kill the enemies. Declaration of war is thus obsolete. A war does not take place if it has not been declared, isn’t it? The Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize

Committee has one alternative left. Either it gives a second thought to Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize or to abolish the institution of Nobel Peace Prize and subsequently dissolve the Committee. What should be the purpose of “Nobel Peace Prize” if wars are no longer declared? No wars, no need of peace. Barack Obama tops the list of MediaStars and considered to be the most powerful person in the World. He is obviously challenged by Pope Francis who started in 2013 only. His rhetoric is more impressive. We must not get into his biography too. Only this much. He is the Head of the Vatican State and has yet

to explain his role during the era of that dirty dictatorship in Argentina in the nineteen seventies. What did he do in Argentina? However, presently, he denounces slavelabour, is against “unbridled capitalism”, denounces corruptions and is distressed over the gulf between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. Is it not known that the Vatican is one of the richest states? Its head, the new superstar Pope Francis of Spanish origin, has not raised the issue of a payback programme of the booties, of a compensation programme of the immoral profits by exploitations of the people and of reparations for wars, murders

and genocides not only in occupied foreign lands. But he preaches forgiveness on all occasions. He did it in South Korea as well in August 2014. We are alerted by a few of his recent statements. He tells the Asian youths: “You don’t choose the path you take. God chooses for you”. Is he a Max Müller of our days? Human conscience, responsibility and individual freedom of will, are thus buried. God mends. Whatever happens, it is God’s will. Thereafter he adds: “As Asians too, you see and love, from within, all that is beautiful, noble and true in your cultures and traditions. Yet as Christians, you also know that the

Gospel has the power to purify, elevate and perfect this heritage.” Yes, “the Gospel has the power to purify, elevate and perfect this heritage” and we see a smiling Roberto de Nobili. Is it conceivable to top this Christian cynicism? Yes, it is conceivable. He himself does it on August 19, 2014 referring to Barack Obama’s bombing in Iraq: “... it is licit to stop the unjust aggressor.” Does he say something to the drone-warfare of Barack Obama? What does he say? Did they not meet each other in the Vatican State very recently? We must keep us on alert to discover the business of Pope Francis and of Barack Obama in Iraq. Who is

“the unjust aggressor”? Pope Francis offers China to "walk together." Then he deviates from his manuscript to add: "I'm not talking here only about a political dialogue, but about a fraternal dialogue. These Christians aren't coming as conquerors, they aren't trying to take away our identity." This is also in 2014. Pope Nikolaus V, Pope Alexander VI and the ruffian Vasco da Gama grins at us maliciously. Will Pope Francis be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize too? We won’t speculate. We refer only that the Nobel Peace Prize is "the world's most prestigious prize", an international prize

which is awarded annually by the Norwegian Nobel Committee according to guidelines laid down in Alfred Nobel's will. Accordingly the Peace Prize is awarded by a committee appointed by the Norwegian Storting. The Peace Prize awarded to whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Henry Kissinger “received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his work on the Vietnam Peace Accords, despite having instituted the secret 1969–1975 campaign of bombing against

infiltrating NVA in Cambodia, the alleged U.S. involvement in Operation Condor—a mid-1970s campaign of kidnapping and murder coordinated among the intelligence and security services of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay—as well as the death of French nationals under the Chilean junta. He also supported the invasion of Cyprus resulting in approximately 1/3 of the island being occupied by foreign troops for 33 years. Some peace activists go so far as to suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize has become irrelevant due to Kissinger being a laureate”. We get back to Barack Obama’s

contribution to peace and try to look behind his remarkable rhetoric. All states get their equal rights. That’s fine. But up till our days only one state and one of its satellite state named Israel have the ability to implement this new “International Law” in practice. Now we read in the will of Alfred Nobel: whoever "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". Well! It costs a lot of money to finance this limitless need of security in the socalled International Laws. The drone-

war enforced by Barack Obama dose not only marks him and his directors as a cold blooded murderer, it is also extremely expensive. So, we simply ask, are those “states” spending the most in the area of mass-killing plans called wars also the spearheads that keeps the Era of Vasco da Gama on run? Which are those “states”? ***** Therefore we started our search to find out which “states” are spending how much to establish “military-power”, for research and developments of weapons, training soldiers as parts of these killing machineries erasing inherent human instincts, and all that goes with it. It is a

difficult exercise to find the current data, but we find enough data as answers to our simple and straightforward queries. Here, we take the data for the year 2012 published by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. We have not yet investigated the financial base of this Research Institute. We know only that their published data have not been contradicted by any of the contemporary “states”. Before we begin discussing the expenditures of individual states of our time for “military-power”, calculated in whatever currencies, we take liberty to mention that the “Anglo-Saxon Billion” is equal to the “European Milliard”. As

“US-Dollar” is considered to be the best known currency internationally, we present the expenditures in “US-Dollar”billions and in absolute terms. Secondly we would like to mention that the past annual increases/decreases in Military-spending of all states are familiar to us. We shall not discuss those aspects, nor shall we discuss comparisons in percentages. Our focus is on expenditures for “military-power” in one year. Our premise is simple and straightforward. The states spending the most do have strong economic interests to follow. Then, spending is not just throwing out money, spending is investment for returns, spending is the

way to make more money than the spent amount. The truth is that the states invest to increase their military power only to earn more money by exploiting the people of other states. The states spend money in the “Military-Complex” after comprehensive meticulous calculations to increase their profit by sustained exploitation of the people and their resources. The ultimate truth is also that wars are profitable “business”. In all wars there are losers and gainers, as it is in all deals in whatever walks of life. We are too simple-minded persons to be made to believe in the so-ardentlypropagated Win-Win-Deals. A deal between two parties always favours the

stronger party. A state with strong economic and military base will dictate the terms of trades. It does not matter whether the terms are dictated before or after the wars. Thus our unambiguous basic proposition is that states investing in “militarypower” intend to use force and violence, intend to kill human beings, are out to make active-wars whenever it is in their profit-interest and thus make manifold gains by exploitations. The first ten states in the ranking list (the expenditures for secret services at home or in foreign lands are not included) are presented in a simple map to begin with. We were surprised when we saw the

map for the first time. We first take a deep breath. In this ranking we find the “People’s Republic of China” (2), Kingdom Saudi-Arabia (7) and Republic of India (8) in the ranking. These three “States” have obviously climbed to the “Club” of the European Christians in the course of the Era of Vasco da Gama. In the beginning of the 20th century Japan had already climbed on to this club of war-mongers, robbers and exploiters. This is a remarkable issue. Yet, we must quit after raising this issue, not to get diverted from our major point.

In 2012 “United States of America” spent the most, $ 682 Billion taking the ranking (1), followed in the ranking by

the “People’s republic of China” $ 166 Billion (2), “Russian Republic” $ 90, 7 Billion (3), “United Kingdom” $ 60, 8 Billion (4), “Kingdom Japan” $ 59, 3 Billion (5), “Republic France” $ 58, 9 Billion (6), “Kingdom Saudi-Arabia” $ 56, 7 Billion (7), Republic of India $ 46, 1 Billion (8), Federal Republic Germany $ 45, 8 Billion (9) and Republic of Italy $ 34, 0 Billion taking the 10th rank. We add the expenditures of the states ranking from the 2nd to the 10th. The total sum of this addition is $ 618, 3 Billion. This is $ 67, 7 Billion less than that is invested in military-power by the “United States of America”. What does

it indicate? We conclude straightforwardly that the “United States of America” is out to dominate over all “states” on our earth and then economically exploit them extensively by all means. The dividend for this investment in the continuing First World War that was declared in the Era of Vasco da Gama is higher than in average international deals in the “market”. We recall: The first foray of Vasco da Gama brought 60 times more that the total sum of investment by the Kingdom in Portugal. We know also that the “United States of America” is dominated by the Anglo-SaxonChristians. And these Anglo-SaxonChristians are occupants of foreign

lands in our day as well and they are guilty of committing genocides. In this context we take an aside and get back to Barack Obama. We recall, as early as in 2009 he is decorated as Nobel Peace Prize laureate for peace. Yes for peace. It has been celebrated as an achievement for the “USA” recognized by those who decide over this prize in Norway. Do we know the members of that committee? We get back to investments in war-fares. We get back to figures for 2012 published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Many other additions show interesting and valuable insights on the distribution of attack-and-

Killing potential of the European Christians. We focus only on one more addition within the list. The European-Christian dominated states invest together $ 972, 2 Billion. And non-Christian states together $ 328, 1 Billion. The Alpha Wolf “state” of the Anglo-Saxon-Christians, the “United States of America”, never invested yearly less than $ 400 Billion in its killing machineries in the last 25 years. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute does not calculate the profit-rates of this investment. Why does not Stockholm International Peace Research Institute do it? What is the average profit rate for investments in

military power potential? We may also take the top-hundred companies producing “arms”. 44 companies are based in “United States of America”, 30 companies are based in “Western Europe”, 15 companies are based in the other OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development having 34 members-states) European states, 6 companies are based in “Russia” and only 5 companies are based in other non-OECD states. Ninety-five of these companies producing killing machineries are under the control of the European Christians. The distribution of these “arms and ammunitions” is also under absolute

control of the European Christians. The whole infra-structure of killing machineries is thus under the control of European Christians. “Intellectual prostitutes” all over the world, the Committee for Nobel Peace Prize in Norway inclusive, try to make us believe that the European Christians are in love making peace all over the world. Of the top 10 companies producing arms seven are based in the “USA”, one in the “UK”, one in “trans-Europe” and one in “Italy”. These are: (1) Lockheed Martin, (2) Boeing, (3) BEA Systems (UK), (4) General Dynamics, (5) Raytheon, (6) Northrop Grumman, (7) EADS (transEurope), (8) Finmeccanica (Italy), (9) L3 Communications and (10) United

Technologies. One last figure: Arms sold by Lockheed Martin in 2011 amounted to $ 36, 3 Billion. Republic Italy spent $ 34, 0 Billion in 2012 for military expenditures. We must always keep this dimension of world’s killing-industry-complex in memory to judge what is really happening in the World War that started in the 16th century. We must also know that investments in the 89 of the tophundred companies producing killing machineries bring high dividends. There is almost no risk. The whole production is already sold before it is produced. Killings and dominations in foreign lands have only one goal, making money.

Money is generated only by sustained exploitations of “slaves” as work-force and of natural resources, intra-“national” and inter-“national”. This is the truth. ***** A “World War III” will never take place. The reason is simple. Before a “World War III” can begin, the “World Wars I and II” must have taken place. The only World War that was ignited by the European Christians against the rest of humanity in the 16th century has not yet ended. It has become more intensive, fierce and gruesome. Ever since the cannons as weapon are invented, non-soldiers, innocent

civilians, are indiscriminately murdered. We must not describe details of developments in “war techniques” since the invention of cannons up to the current dehumanising drone-wars to ascertain that killing of human beings has reached intolerable dimensions. We remember Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn in 1934 to Edward Teller’s nuclear H-Bombs in 1957 as example. Weapons are ever produced for the sole purpose of killing human beings in undeclared and declared periodical murder horror shows. The producers, the sellers and the buyer of weapons are as responsible and are as accountable as the rulers for all these mass-killings, the

least the soldiers. The soldiers are victims. What will happen with the “killingindustry-complex” if there would be buyers for killing-devices? What will happen to the companies producing those murderous weapons? Should that crisis arise, there will be one alternative left for the “killing-industry-complex”. Either close-down their profitable enterprises or to incite active-war-fares at different scales and in different regions. These profitable enterprises do look out creating their markets aided by various reputed institutions like international agencies, universities, Churches, and so

on. Why do these reputed institutions come up to hinder collapse of the “killing-industry-complex”? We apologise and withdraw our question. The hard fact remains that all of these enterprises are doing good business and we are faced with a permanent “World War” since the beginning of the Era of Vasco da Gama. We cannot avoid ascertaining that the European Christians are accustomed in killings. They have killed large number of fellow-Christians between the 4th and 16th centuries to accumulate wealth and power in few hands. The kingdoms and the Churches are rich. All crusades were to be planned and financed. The

crusades under whichever labels were and are highly profitable undertakings. European Christians are engaged in world-wide indiscriminate killings since the 16th century and safe-guarding profits. They will not hesitate to kill more if they would not need “slaves” to exploit natural resources all over the earth. Slaves as exploited human workforce in whatever ways. The Era of Vasco da Gama has started with slaves followed by mercenaries and by clones. The vast majority of people are enslaved to the extent that we are compelled to sell our work-capacity in job “markets” to buyers’ terms. We all know it by own experience.

***** We review for a last time the phases of the Era of Vasco da Gama in a very quick motion. Did European Christians ever intend to bring their “Christian Light” to the darkness of the heathens? From the very beginning they carried heavy weapons, isn’t it? Was there more than the greed for booties? Why didn’t these European Christians follow the example of the “great Ruffian Alexander of Macedonia”? Or follow examples of Muslim ruffians in Bharatavarsa? Rob and leave? Or conquer and stay on without committing genocide? “The Vasco da Gamas and Heirs” seemingly follow a different goal. They

obviously want to dominate all people on our earth and exploit. And they started veiling their goal already in their early days. We are reminded of Matthew the Apostle: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you...”. Immorality, hypocrisy, greed and cruelty have guided European Christians to occupy foreign lands and to dominate over foreign people. The Era of Vasco da Gama is marked by war, robbery, rape, murder and genocide in foreign

lands, later by enslavement and exploitation. Then the need of mercenaries in all shades come up; divide and rule and exploit is put on the agenda. After this consolidation the methods of exploitation have changed. Systematic destruction of production means, “markets”, social coherence, personal and cultural alienation, briefly the cultures in occupied areas are systematically robbed and destroyed. A new culture of exploitation is created; in all walks of life intra-“national” and inter-“national”. Anglo-Saxon-Christians do not depend solely “on bringing” crucifix. Other causes of “justification” for “missions”

are created called development, democracy, freedom, humanity, which are deceptive packages. Democracy, for example, is a plagiarism from ancient Hellenes. It originally meant: common people’s rule. We won’t let us be lured into a discussion, whether this was ever practiced even in a “polis” like Athens. In our context we maintain that all European-Christian-dominated states swindle claiming to be democratic states. These states have erected manifold facades like elections of all shades including “one man, one vote” to veil the real rulers who follow their greed of maximum accumulation of riches and power unscrupulously.

“People” are made to believe, for example, that in an election the people decide and not the publicity-agencies fed by “finance capital and their stooges”. A voting person does not know even that he is kept ignorant on all real issues that are kept secret, he cannot know whether the published information is false or true, he does not have an opportunity to learn how to evaluate information, he is systematically kept away to identify even his own short-and-middle-ranged interests. He does not know what the government, the administration, advisors, “thinktanks”, lobbyists, all-encompassing private companies, universities, media, etc. really do. All essential facts are

kept secret. Many swindles and false alternatives are published. And people have no alternative than to decide between emotionally blown up false alternatives. Very few voters are in a position to cast a competent vote. Thus elections in states claiming “representative democracy” are rituals. People do not have a genuine choice in their interest. Instead of getting into further details in our Epilogue we take liberty to raise a few questions in regard to the land of the champion of European Christians. Ø Has it ever been ascertained in the “United States of America” whether any of their “elections”

were based on a list of voters that was complete? Ø Do we know the percentage of nonvoters in their elections? Ø In which of the elections a President of the “USA” was elected drawing more than 25 % of the total number of potential voter? Ø In which of their elections there was no rigging? Ø Do we know for certain how much money is needed for a contest even for a function in local administration, not to talk about

state and federal elections? Ø Do we know where does the money come from? Ø From good European Christian “Samaritans”? We quit this issue after demanding from university-scholars, think-tankers and other “intellectual prostitutes” to resolve two simple riddles and then requesting kindly to add information about those who invest money on them. Ø Why “peoples’ governments” keep all essential facts under cover as top-secrets, beyond the reach even of the elected representatives of

the people? Ø

Why “peoples’ governments” maintain the many secretintelligence-agencies, whose real activities remain beyond the reach of the people’s knowledge?

Ø Who are those who can afford to buy their services? This prevailing culture is based on mind-management at all levels. We recall the “Godfathers” Roberto de Nobili, Warren Hastings, William Jones and Thomas Babington Macaulay of this policy. This allcomprehensive mind-management begins with the creation of so-called education.

As simple-minded persons we call it dressage of human being to become pets of invisible masters. We realise this by being victims. We have learnt thoroughly that whatever happens to us has its justifications if it remains in the realm of “legality”. Everything is considered to be legal if it can somehow be related to current “laws”. As real victims of this prevailing culture we don’t learn raising questions. We have learnt this ability later, may be too late, to raise questions. We do wonder about where the Laws come from. Are they just fall-outs from the heaven, following the divine order which must faithfully be followed to make God

benevolent towards us? But then we face a riddle. Were the Laws fall-outs from the heaven, why do they change from time to time? How do the Laws change? It appears to be highly improbable that laws were at any time just fall-outs from the heaven, following the divine order. We have meanwhile learnt that Laws have obviously been made and enforced by human beings. Who are those who can make and enforce Laws? Do they have special interests that they protect by creating and enforcing Laws? Are the Laws in the interest of the “haves”? Or are they in the interest of the “have-

nots”? These are the questions and the likes we have learnt to put. Thus we know that not every man is the architect of his own fortune. We have learnt thoroughly that there is only one definite-line of demarcation, in all walks of our life, individually and collectively. We have internalised that there is heaven and there is hell. The God lives in Heaven and the devil lives in hell. Heaven is good and the hell is bad. We have learnt that whatever is good comes from heaven and whatever is bad comes from hell. We know, good is good and bad is bad. We “know” what is good and what is bad, what is honesty and what is dishonesty, what is white

and what is black, what is light and what is darkness. As human beings we have the choice either to be good or to be bad. We are good and the others are bad. We have a definite choice. Either we belong to us or belong to the others. We have learnt thoroughly to know who the others are. Others are those who practice all those vices that we do not practice, at least not in the open. We have not learnt to be curious to know how we become we and others become others. What do we do if “the others” are absent? Do we create “the others”? We create them. Not all of us are angels. Can we not marginalize some of us who are “less-

angels”? Does it not work rather easily? Are there examples of “fallen angels”? Those angels who are caught being unable to maintain the high standard of virtues? Or just become scapegoat? If not, we can conveniently impute to some of us our “latent desires”, project our “dishonesties”, our “sins”, and thus create “the others”. This also we learn thoroughly. We have learnt thoroughly to define ourselves, individually and collectively, only in comparison to the others. We are blessed by God, not the others. If the others were also blessed by our God, then they would belong to us. We posses all good qualities, the others do not. We are we, the others are others. We know

we are strong. We control the media. We define the others projecting our vices on the others. We have learnt thoroughly to be happy and not to worry, not to grumble. Happy to be obedient, happy to fulfil our “duties”, happy to take whatever is within our reach, happy to be entertained round the clock by media, happy to be informed about each and every thing by free media, happy to fight for our cause whatever may be the cost. The others are not happy. The others are poor creatures. Had they been different, they would belong to us. We have learnt thoroughly to blame the others if we are in grief, to make the

others responsible whenever something goes wrong with us, to look down to others almost as sub-human. We have learnt thoroughly not to realise that all our social relationship is reduced to “sell and buy” in a “market”. We have not learnt to note that when we sell, the buyers determine the price and when we buy, the sellers determine the price. We have not learnt to note that there are buyers and sellers and there are buyers and sellers. We have not learnt to note that only powerful buyers and sellers can hire and fire. But yet, we don’t feel like slaves. Slaves? How can we be slaves if we can enslave the others, all over the world?

This pattern of coarse and crude disposition of behaviour we do not learn by our own experiences, nor by handeddown knowledge from our ancestors. We learn this behaviour from “teachers” educated in Churches and in Universities. These teachers function like parrots, but armed with “hismasters’-power” to decide on whether we pass or we fail. Is there a way out? We withdraw this question and apologise. Is there an alternative to determined and uncompromising search and re-search for truths? Is there any other way out?