Sir William Jones and the Asiatic Society: Colonial Scholarship at the Threshold of Modernity
In 1783, William Jones—already celebrated as a linguist, jurist, and translator—arrived in Calcutta as a judge on the Supreme Court of Bengal. Within three years, he had founded the Asiatic Society and launched what became the discipline of comparative philology by identifying the common ancestry of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and other languages. Jones's collaborative work with Indian pandits, his advocacy for studying Indian texts "on their own terms," and his genuine reverence for Sanskrit literature made him an unlikely figure in the colonial apparatus. Yet he was also a colonial official wielding legal authority over Indians, a Biblical literalist who read Hindu cosmology through Genesis chronology, and a believer in European civilizational superiority despite his respect for Indian antiquity. The Asiatic Society became both a site of genuine intellectual exchange and an instrument of colonial knowledge production—a case study in how Tier-1 capacities (curiosity, epistemic humility, collaborative openness) can operate within, and be bounded by, thick Tier-2 commitments.
Tier-2 Commitments: Biblical Literalism, European Superiority, and Religious Enlightenment
Jones operated within a dense constellation of metaphysical, religious, and civilizational commitments that shaped every aspect of his work. Three stand out as particularly consequential.
First, Jones took the Biblical account of Genesis as literally, historically true. In his "Anniversary Discourses" to the Asiatic Society, he declared that "if the Mosaic account of the Flood be not true, then our national religion is on poor foundations."^1^ This was not casual piety but methodological principle: Jones used Enlightenment philology and comparative mythology to vindicate Biblical chronology against Voltairean skeptics who questioned whether human civilization could have arisen in the 4,000-6,000 years allowed by scriptural genealogies. As Urs App demonstrates in The Birth of Orientalism, Jones pursued what Renaissance humanists had called prisca theologia or "Ancient Theology"—the search for traces of primeval monotheistic revelation before the "idolatry of Babel."^2^ His discovery of linguistic kinship among Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin was not a secular breakthrough but part of this theological project: the Indo-European family mapped the post-Flood dispersal of Noah's descendants, with the "three sons of Noah" framework organizing his ethnological speculations.^3^
Jessica Patterson's Religion, Enlightenment and Empire shows that Jones's literalist focus on the Noachic Flood provided what he considered "rational" historical proof for the Bible, withstanding scientific scrutiny through comparative philology and geology.^4^ Thomas Trautmann calls this approach "Mosaic Ethnology": Indo-European languages as evidence of Genesis history, with linguistic divergence tracking the scattering of peoples after Babel.^5^ Far from representing Enlightenment secularism, Jones exemplified what scholars now call the "Religious Enlightenment"—a strain of eighteenth-century thought that deployed rational inquiry, comparative method, and empirical research in service of Christian apologetics, not against it.^6^ Michael J. Franklin positions Jones within the Rational Dissent tradition associated with figures like Richard Price and connections to Benjamin Franklin, showing how Jones's approach to Hinduism extended heterodox Christianity rather than transcending it.^7^
Second, Jones assumed European civilizational superiority as self-evident. India's ancient accomplishments commanded respect, but Europe was "more advanced" not merely technologically but morally and intellectually. In his third Anniversary Discourse (1786), Jones praised Sanskrit's grammatical perfection yet framed Indian philosophy as valuable primarily insofar as it approximated or anticipated European discoveries. The trajectory was clear: India had achieved greatness in antiquity, but had since stagnated or declined, while Europe progressed. This narrative justified British rule as potentially beneficial—enlightened governance could restore India to past glories or guide it toward modernity.
Third, Jones remained committed to Enlightenment universalism: the comparative method would reveal rational principles underlying superficial cultural differences, and all civilizations could be ranked on a single developmental scale. Combined with Biblical literalism, this produced a curious hybrid: polytheistic "idolatry" represented corruption of original monotheism, yet could be studied systematically to recover traces of primeval truth. Hindu cosmology's vast time-scales had to be compressed to fit Genesis; caste systems and "superstitions" marked decline from rational religion; yet Sanskrit texts preserved fragments of ancient wisdom worth recovering.
These commitments were mutually reinforcing. Biblical literalism required explaining Indian antiquity within 6,000-year timeline. European superiority explained why Jones would be the one to "recover" India's past for modern knowledge. Comparative method promised to synthesize everything into coherent picture—with Christianity and European civilization at the apex.
Navigation Under Constraint: Reverence, Collaboration, and the Limits of Curiosity
Within this framework, Jones nevertheless exhibited genuine curiosity and collaborative openness that enabled substantial intellectual exchange. His reverence for Sanskrit was not feigned. He called it "more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either."^8^ He spent years studying with pandits, learning not just language but prosody, philosophy, and literary conventions. He translated the Śakuntalā, Gītagovinda, and the Manusmṛti, producing works that introduced European readers to Indian literary and legal traditions in unprecedented depth.
Jones advocated studying Indian texts "in their own terms" rather than dismissing them as barbarous superstition—a marked contrast to many contemporaries who saw Hindu practices as mere devil-worship or degraded idolatry. He insisted the Asiatic Society employ Indian scholars as equals (within limits of colonial hierarchy), paid them respectfully, acknowledged their expertise in Society proceedings, and credited them in publications. This was not universal practice among colonial officials.
Yet this openness operated within strict boundaries. Jones's "Ancient Theology" project meant he was always reading through Indian texts to recover traces of original monotheism, not engaging Hindu cosmology on its own metaphysical terms. When texts presented doctrines irreconcilable with Genesis—such as the Kali Yuga's millions of years—Jones compressed timelines, reinterpreted metaphors, or dismissed passages as "priestly interpolations." When pandits explained concepts that didn't fit his theological framework, Jones either adapted them to his purposes or noted them as curiosities requiring future study.
Edward Said's Orientalism captures this dynamic with characteristic sharpness: "To rule and to learn, then to compare Orient with Occident: these were Jones's goals, which, with an irresistible impulse always to codify, to subdue the infinite variety of the Orient to a 'complete digest' of laws, figures, customs, and works, he is believed to have achieved."^9^ Said emphasizes how Jones's scholarship was inseparable from colonial power: as Supreme Court judge, Jones needed to systematize Hindu and Muslim law to administer justice "according to native custom" (as Company policy required). His translations of the Manusmṛti and legal digests compiled with pandits' assistance became instruments of governance—fixing fluid, context-dependent legal traditions into codified, enforceable statutes. The "discovery" of Indo-European kinship simultaneously elevated India's ancient past and justified British present rule: if Indians were civilizationally related to Europeans, then Britain's governance could be framed as familial stewardship rather than alien domination.
Jones's Tier-1 capacities—curiosity about unfamiliar traditions, willingness to learn from Indian scholars, epistemic humility about gaps in his own knowledge—enabled genuine collaboration and produced valuable scholarship. But these capacities operated within Tier-2 constraints that ultimately subordinated Indian knowledge to European frameworks and colonial purposes. The pandits Jones worked with were expert scholars in their own right, yet their knowledge entered the historical record primarily through Jones's framing, translation, and interpretation. Their names appear in acknowledgments; Jones's name defines the achievement.
Limits and Complications: Power Asymmetry and Biblical "Leakage"
The Asiatic Society's collaborative intellectual work unfolded within a profound power asymmetry that shaped every interaction. Jones was not a disinterested scholar but a Supreme Court judge—literally holding legal power over the Indians he studied with. Pandits who worked with the Society depended on British patronage in a context where traditional courtly and temple-based systems of scholarly support were eroding under Company rule. The "voluntary" nature of their collaboration must be understood against this background: refusing the most powerful legal official in Bengal carried risks.
This asymmetry extended to knowledge production itself. When Jones and pandits disagreed about textual interpretation, Jones's reading typically prevailed in published versions. When Indian scholars presented cosmological or philosophical frameworks incompatible with Christianity, Jones determined which elements were "essential" (and translatable) versus "priestly corruption" (and dismissable). The collaborative process was genuine, but occurred within a structure where European frameworks had final authority.
Jones's Biblical literalism produced what sensitive readers have called "intermittent leakage of Christian presuppositions" in his renderings of Sanskrit texts—a trait common among eighteenth and nineteenth-century Orientalists.^10^ Translating Hindu concepts of dharma, karma, moksha, or brahman inevitably involved interpretive choices, and Jones consistently chose renderings that made Indian philosophy more compatible with Christian theology. Brahman became "Supreme Being" (monotheistic deity), dharma became "duty" (Christian obligation), karma became "fate" or "destiny" (Providence), and moksha became "salvation" (Christian redemption). These weren't neutral equivalences but assimilations that obscured genuine metaphysical differences.
The contradiction between Jones's professed respect for Indian learning and his assumption of European superiority surfaced repeatedly. He praised Sanskrit's grammatical sophistication yet described contemporary Indians as having "degenerated" from ancient heights. He collaborated with pandits yet positioned himself as the one who would make their knowledge truly comprehensible by systematizing it through European categories. He advocated for Indian autonomy in religious and customary matters yet wielded legal authority to enforce his interpretations of "authentic" Hindu law against living traditions that had evolved beyond Manu's dicta.
None of this makes Jones a hypocrite or villain. He was operating with intellectual tools and moral frameworks available to him—tools that included genuine curiosity, comparative method, collaborative spirit, and Biblical literalism, racial hierarchy, and imperial confidence. The point is precisely that Tier-1 capacities and Tier-2 commitments operated simultaneously, enabling productive exchange while also constraining and ultimately subordinating what was exchanged.
Genealogical Afterlife: The Ambiguous Legacy of Colonial Philology
Jones's work birthed comparative philology as a discipline, establishing methods and frameworks that dominated nineteenth-century linguistics. His "philological proof" of Indo-European kinship—presented in the famous Third Anniversary Discourse (1786)—inspired generations of scholars who mapped language families, reconstructed proto-languages, and theorized about prehistoric migrations.^11^ The discovery was genuine and consequential: Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Celtic, and Persian do share common ancestry. The linguistic evidence Jones marshaled was sound.
Yet this achievement was inseparable from its theological and imperial context. The Indo-European hypothesis served multiple agendas simultaneously: it vindicated Genesis chronology (post-Flood dispersal), it established civilizational kinship between Indians and Europeans (justifying British rule as familial governance), and it positioned Sanskrit as "classical" antiquity (safely past, requiring European scholars to resurrect it). Subsequent scholars secularized Jones's framework, dropping the Biblical scaffolding, but retained the basic structure: languages evolve from common ancestors, can be ranked by sophistication, and reveal historical migrations that map onto racial/civilizational hierarchies.
The Asiatic Society itself became a model for colonial knowledge institutions—learned societies that combined genuine scholarship with administrative utility, employing "native informants" whose expertise enriched European knowledge while subordinating indigenous intellectual traditions to Western frameworks. Later Orientalist institutions from Cairo to Saigon followed this pattern: collaborative research producing valuable knowledge while simultaneously supporting colonial governance.
Jones's ambiguous legacy includes both genuine contributions to human knowledge and participation in colonial knowledge-power. He helped establish comparative philology, introduced European readers to Sanskrit literature, and demonstrated that ancient India possessed sophisticated intellectual traditions worthy of serious study. He also codified Hindu law in ways that simplified and rigidified living traditions, framed Indian civilization as past greatness requiring European resurrection, and used scholarship to support colonial administration. The pandits he worked with enabled his achievements but remain largely anonymous in historical memory—their expertise acknowledged in footnotes while Jones's name defines the era.
As Jawaharlal Nehru later wrote, Jones was "a great scholar who did work of lasting value," yet "his scholarship was tied up with the politics and economics of British rule."^12^ The Asiatic Society's intellectual exchange was real; the power asymmetry structuring that exchange was also real. Tier-1 virtues enabled collaboration; Tier-2 commitments ensured the collaboration served imperial ends. Navigation across profound difference occurred, but within boundaries that ultimately reinforced the hierarchies being navigated.
Endnotes:
^1^ William Jones, "Third Anniversary Discourse" (1786), in The Works of Sir William Jones (London, 1807), 3:34.
^2^ Urs App, The Birth of Orientalism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 133-156.
^3^ Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British India (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 28-61.
^4^ Jessica Patterson, Religion, Enlightenment and Empire: British Interpretations of Hinduism in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 178-203.
^5^ Trautmann, Aryans and British India, 49-61.
^6^ David Sorkin, The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). On Jones specifically, see Patterson, Religion, Enlightenment and Empire, 15-42.
^7^ Michael J. Franklin, Orientalist Jones: Sir William Jones, Poet, Lawyer, and Linguist, 1746-1794 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 89-112.
^8^ Jones, "Third Anniversary Discourse," 34.
^9^ Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1994 [1978]), 78.
^10^ On "Biblical leakage," see Raymond Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance: Europe's Rediscovery of India and the East, 1680-1880, trans. Gene Patterson-Black and Victor Reinking (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 54-67; Franklin, Orientalist Jones, 234-258.
^11^ For Jones's impact on comparative philology, see Hans Aarsleff, The Study of Language in England, 1780-1860 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967), 115-161; Trautmann, Aryans and British India, 62-97.
^12^ Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India (New York: John Day Company, 1946), 299.
[Word count: ~2,850 words]
No comments:
Post a Comment