T HE A UTHOR
Diana Dimitrova obtained her PhD in Modern and Classical Indology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, in 2000. She is Professor of Hinduism and South Asian Religions at the University of Montreal in Montreal, Canada. Her research interests are Hindi drama and theatre; Bollywood film; modern and pre-modern literary and religious cultures of North India, especially sant and bhakti literary and religious traditions. She is the author of Gender, Religion and Modern Hindi Drama (2008) and Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre (2004). She is also the editor of The Other in South Asian Religion, Literature and Film: Perspectives on Otherism and Otherness (2014) and Religion in Literature and Film in South Asia (2010). Her articles include “The Treatment of Women and Gender in the Plays Asharh ka ek din and Adhe adhure by Mohan Rakesh (1925–1972),” in Toþwa-e-dil. Festschrift Helmut Nespital (2001); “Of satis, Sitas, and Miras: Three Female Protagonists in Modern Hindi Drama,” in Heroes and Heritage: The Protagonist in Indian Literature and Film (2003); “The Indian Character of Modern Hindi Drama: Neo-Sanskritic, Pro-Western Naturalistic or Nativistic Dramas?” in Theology and Literature: Rethinking Reader Response (2006); “UpendranathAshk’s Play Tufan se
pahle and Hindu-Muslim Cultural Hybridity,” in Voices from South Asia (2006); “The Development of Sanatana Dharmavin the Twentieth Century: A Radhasoami Perspective,” in The International Journal of Hindu Studies, Volume 1, Issue 1 (2007) 89–98; and “Neo-Sanskritic and Naturalistic Hindi Drama,” in Modern Indian Theatre (2009).
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
This book studies the representation of Hinduism through myth and discourse in urban Hindi theatre in the period 1880–1960. It discusses representative works of seven influential playwrights and inquires into the way they have “imagined” and “reimagined” Hindu tradition. The major questions that I seek to answer are: What are the Hindu myths that the authors have appropriated and reworked in their plays and what are the ideological discourses that we can discern? Why are the ancient myths relevant to the contemporary and modernist agenda of the playwrights? What are the ideological implications of the interpretative discourses and how are they informed by the power structures of society? There has been an intrinsic link between religion, theatre, and performance in India since ancient times. It suffices to mention the numerous enactments of the epics Ramāyāṇa and the Mahābhārata, as well as a myriad of folk performances from ancient times and up to present day as an intrinsic part of Hindu religiosity and culture. Oftentimes in Hindu traditions, the human body dancing and performing to the gods has been thought to represent as deep an insight into the religious nature of phenomena as the introspective discussion of philosophical or theological texts.
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016
Diana Dimitrova, Hinduism and Hindi Theater, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59923-0_1
1
In the age of nationalism and modernity, religion and theatre, especially urban theatre, seem to have become two completely separate domains. However, religion continues to inform the imagination of Hindi dramatists and remains highly topical and relevant to comprehending Hindi theatre. As my discussion shows, the study of the representation of Hinduism in Hindi theatre can deepen our understanding about the multifaceted Hindu traditions. It also helps us analyse the various ideological, nationalistic, and cultural discourses which Hinduism used to legitimate, thus reaffirming the innate link between religion, literature, and the performing arts in the age of modernity.
In Chapter 2, I discuss important questions related to myth and discourses in the Hindu traditions. The exploration of myth has been of great significance to the study of religion from the sixteenth century onwards. Scholars have analysed myth from different angles. I therefore look into the major theories of myth in the fields of religious studies. I then proceed to discuss the significance of myth in South Asia and the process of remythologizing of South Asian culture. Similarly, there has been considerable scholarship on the notions of “ideology” and “discourse.” I point to the work of Foucault and Stuart Hall in order to define the differences between the two concepts and to delineate my use of the terms in this book.
In Chapter 3, I elaborate on the complex implications of inventing the tradition of Hindi theatre as a neo-Sanskritic one. I reflect on the invention of the theatrical tradition of Hindi as a continuous flow originating in classical Sanskrit theatre. Next, I discuss Hindi drama from its origination in the second half of the nineteenth century until the 1960s. I stress the significance of court Urdu drama, the Parsi theatre, and Western plays for the beginnings and growth of Hindi theatre. In order to understand the way Hinduism has been represented in Hindi theatre, I look into the literary scene of the time, especially at Urdu–Hindi Progressivism, and discuss how the ideas of the Hindu reform
movements, specifically of the Arya Samaj, have contributed to the formation of the world view of several authors. I also look into the creation of the canon of modern Hindi drama and the role that mythologizing of Hindu traditions plays for the inclusion or exclusion from the canon.
In Chapter 4, I study the interpretation of questions related to caste and the social and religious ordering of life (varṇāśramadharma) as well the representation of Hinduism and nationalism in the plays of Bharatendu Harishcandra, Jayshankar Prasad, Lakshminarayan Mishra, Bhuvaneshvar, Jagdishcandra Mathur, and Upendranath Ashk. The authors represented Buddhists, Muslims, Huns, Greeks, and the British as “the others,” thus affirming a clearcut Hindu identity of their protagonists. They asserted Hinduism and Hindu identity of their positive main characters, representing them as superior to their Buddhist, Muslim, Greek, or British counterparts. An exception here is the work of Ashk who instead of mythologizing the religious “other,” demythologizes the construction of religious divide between Hindus and Muslims and clearly locates the cultures of his dramatis personae in religious hybridity. I also emphasize the plurality and multiple perspectives of Hindu traditions. At the same time, I point out that despite this plurality, we can discern a distinct Hindu cultural identity that the dramas help to promote.
In Chapter 5, I first discuss Hindu images of the feminine and then proceed to analyse the conservative and progressive mythologizing of the interpretation of women in the work of the seven playwrights discussed in the book. I analyse the work of Harishcandra, Prasad, Mishra, and Mohan Rakesh who promote neo-Sanskritic values and primordial Hindu ideals and argue for conservative and orthodox Hindu myth models for women. The playwrights use Hindu imagery in order to embrace conservatism and argue for traditional education and gender roles. Next, I study the work of Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk and show how these authors represent Hinduism differently. In their
works, they subvert tradition and question traditional myths and values. Similarly, while we can discern idealization of the Hindu tradition in the works of Harishcandra, Prasad, Mishra, and Rakesh, authors like Mathur, Bhuvaneshvar, and Ashk question this idealization of primordial and orthodox Hinduism, arguing in their plays for a modernized and progressive Hinduism. I also discuss the ways in which the processes of mythologizing and othering of women impact the construction of the literary canon.
In the conclusion, I summarize and discuss the inferences made in the preceding chapters. I examine the intersections of Hinduism and Hindi theatre and emphasize the important role that both myth and discourse play in the representation of Hindu traditions in the works of the seven authors discussed. While my analysis has pointed to either a traditionalist or to a more modernist stance towards religious issues, there has never been any doubt about the “Hindu” nature of all questions discussed. It was not possible to identify any Hindi-speaking authors who deal with issues implicit to the Muslim, Sikh, or Jain, etc. traditions. Thus, my study of Hindi theatre had to imply “Hindu” theatre which argued on behalf of Hinduism by means of its myths and the various ideological discourses with which one either endorses or refutes the (orthodox) Hindu tradition. We may therefore suggest that Hindi theatre of the period 1880–1960, as represented in the works of the seven dramatists discussed, is truly “Hindu–Hindi” theatre.
Hindi theatre has been the subject of several publications, which points to the growing interest in this hitherto neglected field. Some recent works include Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance: Theatre and Politics in Colonial and Postcolonial India and Performing Women/Performing Womanhood: Theatre, Politics and Dissent in North India by Nandi Bhatia; Poetics, Plays and Performances: The Politics of Modern Indian Theatre by Vasudha Dalmia; Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since 1947 by Aparna Dharwadker; and my
own books on this subject: Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre and Gender and Religion and Modern Hindi Drama. 1
Although there have been several recent studies on Hindi drama and on religion and gender in Hindi drama, there are no monographs on the interpretation of Hinduism, myth, and discourse in Hindi theatre. Thus, the present study is a desideratum in the field of both Hinduism and of Hindi theatre.
ON METHOD
Methodologically, two perspectives can be defined in the course of this study. The first one refers to the thematic analysis of the dramatic work of seven representative authors in the period 1880–1960, and the second one to the critical study of the representation of Hinduism in the plays and to issues pertaining to ideology, discourse, nationalism, gender, and mythologizing.
The study of the historical and socio-cultural background in which modern Hindi theatre and drama developed accounts for the emphasis I place on sources for the formation of the dramatists. I interpret the texts not as trans-historical but as deeply embedded in the socio-cultural life of contemporary Indian society. In addition, the thematic analysis of the authors’ work, which points to various ideological discourses on Hinduism, nationalism, and gender, prompts me to broaden the perspective of my approach to the plays by taking into consideration major concepts of theories of nationalism, gender, mythologizing, and othering. Thus, my goal is to examine the power configurations of Hinduism as revealed in the plays. I inquire into the nature of marginalization and othering in Hindu society and discuss the interpretation of issues related to caste and gender. Some of the questions that I ask are: Do the playwrights promote a conservative and orthodox vision of Hindu tradition or a modernized one? Who owns the discourse—who are the “we” and who are the “others”? Are these Hinduism’s “others”—and are these inner or outer “others” or both?
ON TRANSLITERATION
The system of transliteration in this work follows a standard system for Hindi, in which long vowels are marked with a macron, for instance, ā, and reftroflex consonants with a dot beneath the letter, for example ḍ. Nasalization is indicated by the sign ṃ, which follows the nasalized vocal, for instance, bhaṃvar. No special symbol is used for anusvāra (superscript dot denoting homorganic or other nasal consonant) in the transliteration, the appropriate nasal consonant being written to avoid confusion in the pronunciation, for example, raṅgmañc. All Hindi words and titles of works are spelled according to the transliteration system for Hindi, for example, kavitā. The names of authors, the names of deities, of characters in fiction and scripture, of languages, and of cities and countries have not been marked with diacritics. The character “c” in the Indian words and names should be read as “ch” in English, for instance, Candragupta (read: Chandragupta).
NOTE
1. See N. Bhatia, Acts of Authority/Acts of Resistance: Theatre and Politics in Colonial and Postcolonial India (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004); N. Bhatia, Performing Women/Performing Womanhood: Theatre, Politics and Dissent in North India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010); V. Dalmia, Poetics, Plays and Performances: The Politics of Modern Indian Theatre (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2005); A. Dharwadker, Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory and Urban Performance in India since 1947 (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 2005); D. Dimitrova, Western Tradition and Naturalistic Hindi Theatre (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), and D. Dimitrova, Gender, Religion and Modern Hindi Drama (Montreal and London: McGillQueen’s University Press, 2008).
CHAPTER 2
Rethinking Hinduism, Mythologizing, and Otherism
This chapter studies Hindu traditions in relation to myth and discourse. It will not repeat or restate obvious facts of Hinduism, but will rethink the Hindu traditions by taking into account the intrinsic links between religion, theatre, myth, and discourse. I will first present an overview of the major theories of myth, discourse, and the concept of the “other” and will then proceed to discuss the links between myth, ideology, and discourse and the way Hinduism has been informing Hindi theatre by means of mythologizing and otherism.1
THE CONCEPT OF “MYTH” AND THE PROCESS OF MYTHOLOGIZING
Myth has been studied by scholars of religion and philosophy since ancient times. Several influential theories have appeared over time giving different interpretations of the connections between knowledge and myth. Thus, we can refer to the theories of myth in antiquity, as represented in the views of the sophists, of Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the neo-Platonists on the links between reality and myth. It is important also to mention the ideas of medieval Christian thinkers who interpreted
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016
Diana Dimitrova, Hinduism and Hindi Theater, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59923-0_2
7
the myths in the Bible in allegorical or figurative way. During the Renaissance, myths were seen positively as expressions of poetic allegories or religious truths. By contrast, in the time of the Enlightenment myth was interpreted negatively and referring to lack of knowledge. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries most influential is the Romantic theory of myth, as represented in the work of Schelling and Hegel.2 Myth is seen in aesthetic terms, as prototype of artistic creation. The second half of the nineteenth century witnessed the beginnings of the “mythological” and anthropological schools in the study of myth. Scholars from the mythological school, such as Indologist Max Mueller3 looked to comparative and historical linguistics and aimed at presenting ancient Indo-European mythology by comparing roots and etymologies of words in Indo-European languages. Edward Tylor and Andrew Lang,4 on the other hand, researched archaic and civilized societies from the perspective of comparative ethnography. They understood mythology as “primitive science” without any aesthetic elements. In the twentieth century the exploration of myth continued and there came into being new theories of myth, such as the rationalistic, ritualistic, functional, the French sociological school, symbolic, psychoanalytic, phenomenological, and structural.
The religious or rationalistic or intellectualist theory sees myths as an endeavour to explain reality, albeit in a false way. Ritualistic theories of myth, whose main representatives are William Robertson Smith5 and James George Frazer,6 see rituals as the source from which religion and myth were born. Frazer researched myths that deal with seasonal cycles and the mythème of the king. The myth and ritual school was influential in the 1930s and 1940s and impacted the study of Western literature, art, and culture.
Bronislaw Malinowski,7 one of the most important exponents of the functionalist theories, argues that we need to search for the meaning of myth in its functions. He points out that myth
functions to respond to people’s search for meaning, identity, and belonging. Malinowski emphasizes the social function of myth within a particular culture, such as the need for social submission or practical requirements. The ideas of the French Sociological School whose most well-known thinkers are Emile Durkheim8 and Lucien Lévy Bruhl9 are influenced by social psychology and the particular features of the community, to which they refer as “collective representations.” Durkheim argues that religion and myth are informed by the collective representations that put into words social reality. Lévy Bruhl draws on Durkheim’s work on primitive thought and looks into its specific features and asserts difference of mentalités, of different modes of thinking.
Symbolic theories, whose main exponent is Ernst Cassirer,10 argue that myths do not explain reality, but rather, they represent it in a symbolic way. He holds that myths have hidden meanings that must be decoded. Similarly, the psychoanalytic theory of myth is closely linked to the symbolic theory. Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung11 are the two most influential representatives of this school and they argue that the symbolic representations of myths may be linked to repressed material from the individual unconscious, universal archetypes of patterns from the collective unconscious, or social organization and structure.
Phenomenological theories of myth, whose most prominent representative is Mircea Eliade,12 see myths as the embodiment of the sacred and discard all rationalistic and functional approaches. They argue that myths can be best studied by comparative approaches in order to discern a common pattern. Eliade holds that “mythology gives meaning to human suffering: cyclical theories of time, mythology and especially myth associated with recurrent rituals of regeneration, rebirth and purification help humans transform chaos into order and give value to the human existence in terms of its correlation to sacred and mythical time and the archetypal actions of the cultures mythical figures” (Dimitrova 2010: 5–6).
Structuralist theories of myth, whose most well-known exponent is Claude Lévi-Strauss,13 understand myths as cognitive structures by means of which people think. In his four-volume work Mythologiques (1964–1971) Lévi-Strauss argues that language is a model for comprehending myth. Myth is understood as a linguistic category that can be translated and analysed in terms of Saussure’s notions of langue and parole. Lévi-Strauss researches the transformation of myths as codes that appear in different thematic retellings and versions. In this way he points to a specific logic of correspondences among myths.
Each of these theories of myth allows us to gain deep understanding of the nature of myth. Modern definitions of “myth” seek to highlight its symbolic, narrative aspect and its service as a paradigm of the human social order. Thus, myths can also justify or explain away social injustice, gender inequality, marginalization of a religious or social group, or forge a national identity. In the twentieth century, we witness the rebirth of myth and its profound use in literature, theatre, politics, and ideological discourses. This process of mythologizing (or remythologizing) of the present has been a potent trend in both Western and South Asian societies and cultures (Dimitrova 2010: 7–14).
It is therefore not surprising that the study of myth and mythologizing are important in literary criticism. There are two major “schools” of myth-criticism,14 archetypal, and structural and ideological myth-criticism (Dimitrova 2010: 8). The psychological theories of Freud and Jung and the theories of the English anthropological school, and especially James Frazer’s The Golden Bough have greatly impacted archetypal myth-criticism, whose most well-known representatives are Francis Fergusson, Maud Bodkin, Richard Chase, and Northrop Frye.15 This school is also known under the name “myth and ritual school,” as its exponents understand myth and ritual as closely interlinked.
The theory of Lévi-Strauss, structuralist linguistic theory and semiotics have impacted structuralist myth-criticism whose most
influential proponents are Roland Barthes, Vladimir Propp,16 and Mikhail Bakhtin.17 Barthes’s work is crucial to understanding the relation between structuralist theories of myth and ideology. Barthes elaborates on myth in politics and contemporary popular culture18 and studies myth in relation to language and to information, and in terms of semiotics. He affirms that “mythology is a part of both semiology inasmuch as it is a formal science, and of ideology inasmuch as it is an historical science: it studies ideasin-form.”19 He argues that in myth there are two semiological systems: the language, and a metalangue. He refers to the signifier of the first-order system of language as “meaning,” and to the sign, as “concept” (Dimitrova 2010: 9). Barthes points out that myth transforms history into ideology at the level of sign and discusses the fundamentals for a theory that studies the beginnings of political myths. Barthes holds that our times have a preference for mythologizing. Myth becomes a potent tool of political discourse which aims to present a particular political ideology as natural or true.
Independently of the ideological position the scholars discussed in this section expound, they all assert the process of mythologizing of contemporary literature and culture and the revival of myth and religion in the twentieth century.
HINDUISM AND MYTHOLOGIZING
Prominent theoreticians of myth, such as Eleazar Meletinsky see the rebirth of myth and the process of mythologizing in literature and culture as an expression of modernism and the disillusionment with the demythologizing process of the period of the Enlightenment in the eighteenth century and positivism in the nineteenth century (Dimitrova 2010: 7). While I fully agree with this statement, I see the main reasons for the potent trend of the mythologizing of society and culture nowadays, both in the West and in South Asia, in the intrinsic links between myth, religion,
and ideology and the always-present and recurrent need to reflect on the world that surrounds us and on our human condition in various cultural/literary, national, and political discourses. This is where religion, myth, and ideology intersect and produce mythologizing discourses by which one includes and excludes or others. Hindu myths have fascinated Indologists for several centuries now.20 In the wake of the theories of myth proposed by Malinowski and Barthes, scholars of South Asia have also explored the importance of myth and mythologizing for the religions and politics of contemporary India.21 Thus, the myth of the Hindu god Rama from the ancient epic of the Rāmāyaṇa has been used multiple times by Hindu nationalists to promote a Hindu tradition that is informed by notions of hindutva (Hindudom), which understands Hinduism as a unifying cultural and political reality in modern India (Dimitrova 2008: 87).
Similarly, myths of the Hindu goddess Sita, the loyal and loving spouse of the god Rama, have often promoted Sita as a role-model for Hindu women. In the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, the Hindi poet Tulsidas renders a devotional version of the ancient epic, the Rāmcaritmānas, in which Rama’s wife Sita, submissive and passive, stands as a religious symbol of the devotee full of bhakti (loving devotion) to the deity (i.e., the god Rama). Taken out of the religious context, this female loyalty and submissiveness has been mythologized in literary/cultural, religious, and political discourses and translated into social terms as the role-model for the accepted and desirable behaviour for Hindu women, thus encouraging them to be submissive, passive, and docile and relegating them to a marginalized and inferior position (Dimitrova 2008: 15–22).
It is important to note here that Hindu tradition has produced not only myths and images that could be manipulated or mythologized with a conservative political and social agenda in mind, but also the independent and liberating images of the Goddess, of bhakti female poet Mirabai, and of Draupadi, the wife of the five Pandava brothers in the ancient epic Mahābhārata, who, though
loyal and loving, is able to question the actions of her husbands, and to disagree with them, thus demonstrating a greater degree of autonomy and independence (Dimitrova 2008: 15–22).
Feminists in South Asia and many women scholars in Western academia have used these liberating images of the feminine to argue for a liberating and progressive interpretation of the position of women in Hinduism. Similarly, evoking images of the god Shiva as a loving husband or of Hindu–Muslim poet Kabir can promote masculine Hindu images of familial loyalty, warmth and devotion to one’s wife, or of religious sentiments that transcend religious divides and communal violence.
While we find Hindu myths that are liberating or oppressive to women, or inclusive or exclusive of religious minorities, in the multifaceted and pluralistic Hindu tradition (like in every other religious tradition), it is the mythologizing process that conveys an oppressive and exclusive, or a liberating and inclusive message.
A question that arises is how to explain mythologizing, how does mythologizing work and why is it such a potent trend in South Asian literary and religious discourses nowadays? The appropriation and interpretation of religious ideas and myths by South Asian poets, novelists, and dramatists is an important characteristic of South Asian literature, film, and culture in the twentieth century. There is no doubt that Western modernism had impacted South Asian literature and film, but we can also explain this phenomenon by pointing out the universality of the poetic unconscious imagination and the continuous and enduring presence of traditional Indian mythology in every aspect of South Asian literature, film, and culture.
The reworking of mythological elements in contemporary South Asian literature and film oscillates between the romantic exaltation of national culture and a modernist quest for traditional archetypes. Often myths and mythical archetypes are linked to ideological critique and are inherent in discourses that express a highly supportive or critical stance towards society, political
institutions, and conservative tradition and gender relations. In the field of Hindi theatre, mythologizing is a potent trend and informs the works of authors such as Harishcandra, Prasad, Mishra, Bhuvaneshvar, Rakesh, Bharti, Ashk. There have not been many studies on mythologizing in South Asian literature, even though scholars have started to look into different questions related to myth in South Asian literatures.22 Scholars have begun writing on different questions related to myth in South Asian religions and literatures in recent years.23 There has been, however, no study exploring the links between religion, myth, and discourse in Hindi theatre and the way Hinduism has been represented by means of both the process of mythologizing and the discourses of otherism.
THE NOTION OF THE “OTHER” AND THE DISCOURSE OF OTHERISM
This exploration of the representation of Hinduism through mythologizing and otherism would be incomplete without a discussion, albeit brief, on the notion of the “other” in Western and Hindu thought.
Several prominent scholars, such as phenomenologist Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), phenomenologist and existentialist Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961), and existentialist Emanuel Lévinas (1906–1995) have explored the notion of the “other.” Many post-structuralist, postmodernist, and feminist thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), and Julia Kristeva (b. 1941) have also reflected on the concept of the “other.”24 Two major interpretations of the concept of the “other” are the phenomenological and post-phenomenological positions, as revealed in the works of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty, and of Lévinas, respectively (Dimitrova 2014: 1). I will discuss briefly the theories of these scholars. Additionally, I will also examine
the positions of two important postmodernist thinkers, Derrida and Foucault, and proceed to discuss the concept of the “other” in Hindu thought from a phenomenological and a post-phenomenological perspective.
The phenomenological position understands the “other” as always being in a subordinate relation to the “self.” It is “the self” that “makes,” controls and others the “other.” Scholars have referred to this dominant role of the “self” towards the other as “the imperialism of the same” (Reynolds 2001: 1). The studies of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty are of central importance here. Husserl’s concept of the “alter-ego” has greatly impacted the postmodernist interpretation of the “other” as the other side of the “self.” Similarly, Merleau-Ponty points out the chiasmic link between the “self” and the “other” in our embodied existence, which makes it impossible to touch someone without feeling touched oneself (Reynolds 2001: 14; Dimitrova 2014: 1–2).
The “post-phenomenological” position interprets the “other” beyond dialectic, as what cannot be known (Reynolds 2001: 2). Thus, the divine/God stands for the infinite, the transcendent, the “other” that cannot be known. Lévinas has emphasized the positive meaning of “otherness” for human beings. In his view, our relation with “the other” is informed not by confrontation with the other, but from the need to respond to the call of the “Other” (Silberstein and Cohn 1994: 25). As I have argued elsewhere, this is similar to a very positive interpretation of the “other” in Buddhist thought (Dimitrova 2014: 2).
The phenomenological position of the “other” as revealed in the work of Husserl and Merleau-Ponty has impacted postmodernist scholars and their interpretation of the notion of the “other.” They expound that the “other” is always artificially created and constructed. It is power and ideology that inform the relations of “self” and “other,” not nature. These scholars are concerned not only with the creation but also with the contestation of “other-
ness.” Innovative here is the attention that postmodernist thinkers have given to the subjectivity of the “other” and they look into the ways in which “others” have themselves resisted dominant discourses (Hallam and Street 2000: 1–6).
The writings of Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault are most influential for understanding the postmodernist position on the “other.” Even though Derrida has been seen as a representative of a phenomenological position in the interpretation of the “other,” we should bear in mind that his ideas are more complex. Thus, Lévinas’s ideas have impacted Derrida’s earlier work. We may argue that Derrida is indebted to Lévinas for his interpretation of the messianic and his emphasis on the radical singularity of the “other” as wholly other (tout autre) (Reynolds 2001: 1–9). The messianic is the human condition which denotes our waiting for the wholly other who cannot be defined and who will never arrive, like in Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot (Reynolds 2001: 11; Dimitrova 2004: 37, 91; Dimitrova 2014: 2). Later in his career, Derrida adopts a more phenomenological position and argues that the “other” is always part of the “self.” Derrida refers to his approach of philosophical and cultural inquiry as “deconstruction.” Deconstruction is marked by the questioning of stereotypes and patterns of exclusion and domination of the “other.” Derrida also emphasizes our responsibility to the “other” and the importance of the voices of the marginalized and excluded “objects.” Michel Foucault also interprets the relations between the “self” with the “other” in terms of opposition. He emphasizes the role of knowledge and power in the process of othering. He explores various discourses by means of which groups have been excluded and exposes what he calls the “regimes of truth” that served as norms for inclusion or exclusion (Silberstein and Cohn 1994: 7). Thus, it is important to look into the links between discursive practices and othering in greater detail and to study the links between religion, ideology, and discourse. I use the term “discourse” to designate a specific means way of thinking, viewing,
interpreting, writing, and talking about phenomena and realities, for instance, “Hinduism” and “Hindu values,” and the relations between them. Stuart Hall points out that discourse is about the production of knowledge through language. It is related to the notion of “ideology”: a set of statements which produce knowledge that serves the interests of a particular class or group (Hall 2000: 202; Dimitrova 2014: 5–6). While the reference to ideology implies difference between true suppositions about the world (science) and false suppositions (ideology), and the understanding that the scientific fact would enable us to distinguish false statements from true ones, conversely, it is the position of power (and not science) that makes suppositions “true” in a discourse.
Stuart Hall explains how Ferdinand Saussure’s ideas about understanding the meaning of words in language as conveyed by binary opposites, such as for example “day” and “night” forms meanings also in natural and (we may add) religious cultures (Hall 2000: 178; Dimitrova 2014: 6). Thus, national and religious cultures get their strong idea of identity by juxtaposing themselves with other religions and cultures. For instance, in Hindi theatre, Hinduism is often discussed against the background of other traditions, such as Buddhism or Islam, or Western/Greek culture. In this manner, Hindi playwrights have constructed and affirmed Hinduism’s sense of itself through its sense of difference from other religions and cultures—by means of how it came to represent itself in relation to these “others.”
I will use the term “otherism,” which I have coined in my last book, to denote the universal discourse of “otherness and othering” (Dimitrova 2014: 1–19). Unlike E. Said’s “orientalism” (Said 1979) otherism is a more inclusive term, as it reflects not only on race and ethnicity, but also on gender and sexuality, and goes beyond the “West and the rest”-dichotomy to include each religion’s/nations’s/culture’s inner and outer “others.” In the discourse of otherism, any religion/culture/gender/sexuality can be the “other” and be “othered,” when stereotyped, viewed, and
talked about from a certain dominant perspective, be it “orientalist,” “occidentalist,” and so on.
It is the narrative of power that defines other: the owner of the discourse is the party who sees itself in the position of power to other the other party and marginalize it by producing meanings about it as different or inferior. This could be the “West” othering the “Rest” or India othering the “West” or Hinduism othering Buddhism, Islam, or Greek culture to establish its own position of superiority—as revealed in the plays discussed in this book.
HINDUISM AND OTHERISM
While the following section is far from exhaustive and while it is impossible to discuss all aspects of the interpretation of the “other” in Hindu thought,25 I would like to discuss this question and to present here a different non-Western perspective on the notion of the “other.” It is important to emphasize that I absolutely disagree with the negative and prejudiced position of German idealist philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) on the notion of “self” in Hinduism that has influenced uninformed Western views on the concept of “self” in South Asian thought. Additionally, I do not view Hinduism as “superior” to other South Asian traditions, for example to Buddhism, owing to the existence of the concept of “self” in Hindu thought.26
From a Hindu perspective, a post-phenomenological interpretation of the “Other,” in Lévinasian sense, would need to take into consideration the notion of brahman (the absolute) and ātman as revealed in the Upaniṣads and then to reflect on the discussions of ātman and brahman according to the different schools of Vedānta. 27 The questions would be made even more complex when considering that whereas the notion of “brahman” could be understood in the sense of the transcendental “other” of Lévinas and the earlier work of Derrida, Hinduism has also introduced the notion of what ninth-century Advaitist Shankara calls “lower
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
were also in the ranks and refused to be officers. This was a part of the plan of particular importance, for had gentlemen accepted only the situation of officers, the spirit of entering the corps among yeomen, farmers &c. would have been much cooler; but when they saw their landlords, and men of high consideration in the neighbourhood, in the same situation, their vanity was flattered, and they enrolled themselves with great readiness, and the great object of property of such importance in case of revolutionary disturbance was thus secured.
Some years afterwards, being at the Duke of Bedford’s at Woburn, I sat at dinner by a gentleman of great property, captain of a troop of yeomanry, who told me that whenever his troop met he always drank my health after the King’s, for being the undisputed origin of all the yeomanry corps in the kingdom, possibly arising from extracts from my writings on the subject having been much circulated in the newspapers.
This year my valuable and very sincere friend, the Earl of Orford, died. The public papers that have announced the death of this noble lord have recorded the ancestry from which he was descended, the heirs of his honours, and the inheritors of his wealth, and have dwelt upon the titles that are extinct or devolved, together with all the posts and employments that are vacant. To me be the melancholy duty of noting what is of much more moment than the descent of a peerage or the transfer of an estate—the loss of an animated improver; of one who gave importance to cultivation by a thorough knowledge of political economy, and bent all his endeavours towards making mankind happy by seconding the pursuits of the farmer and the enquiries of the experimentalist. I leave the lieutenancy of a county, the rangership of a park, and the honours of the bedchamber to those in whose eyes such baubles are respectable. I would rather dwell on the merit of the first importer of Southdown sheep into Norfolk; on the merit of sending to the most distant regions for breeds of animals, represented as useful, not indeed always with success, but never without liberality in the motive; on the patron and friend of the common farmer, not the lord of a little circle of tenants, but the general and diffusive encourager of
every species of agricultural improvement. Nor did he associate with the useful men because he was not qualified for the company of higher classes, for his mind was fraught with a great extent of knowledge; it was decorated by no trivial stores of classical learning, which exercised and set off the powers of a brilliant imagination, and thus qualified, alike for a Court or an Academy of Science, he felt no degradation in attending to THE PLOUGH. By the death of this noble personage the ‘Annals’ have lost a valuable correspondent, and their editor a warm friend. Notwithstanding the immense list of Peers, seven or eight only have become correspondents in this work. The insects of a drawing-room, the patrons of faro, the luminaries of Newmarket, are spared; while the hand of death deprives the farmer of a friend, Norfolk of a protector, and England of a real patriot.
Lord Loughborough was the Judge at the Summer Assizes this year at Bury, and I being on the Grand Jury, he sent a note to inform me that he was alone at his lodgings, and desired me to come and chat with him. This I did, of course, and in our conversation he mentioned that there was an estate of 4,400 acres of land in Yorkshire on the moors, in the vicinity of Paitley Bridge, to be sold for 4,000l., that it was chiefly freehold, and enclosed with a ring fence, also that there was a neat shootingbox on it built by the Duke of Devonshire, who hired the grouse. I assured his Lordship that he must be mistaken, for it was impossible that such a tract of land under several circumstances which he named could be on sale for half an hour without being purchased. He answered that nobody would buy it, as the land was all moor or peat, and covered with ling, but that some neighbouring farmers gave, he believed, 100l. per annum for the whole as a walk for mountain sheep. I told him that it seemed so extraordinary to me that I would go immediately to view it. He said the proper persons to apply to to view it were Sir Cecil Wray, Dr Kilvington, and another gentleman. I accordingly went immediately to Yorkshire, and, taking up my quarters at Paitley Bridge, enquired till I found a person who knew the whole estate perfectly well, and engaged him early the next morning in order to make the tour of the whole property. It appeared to me to be
wonderfully improvable, and that very considerable tracts to the amount of some hundred acres were palpably capable of irrigation and improvement, evidently applicable from the case of a small watercourse for conducting the water to an old smelting mill, but long neglected. This course had overflowed and converted the ling, over about fifteen acres, to grass. I asked my conductor what this grass would let for with a small cottage and stable for cows; he said, ‘Certainly fifteen shillings an acre.’ It was sufficiently evident that improvements might be wrought at a very small expense, and that building was remarkably cheap, from every material except timber being found on the spot, and lime at a small distance. There was a small farm in cultivation to produce oats, and the appearance not unfavourable. As I knew that a land surveyor well acquainted with all this country resided at Leeds, I determined to go thither to bring him over to view, and give his opinion as to the value of the property. This I did, brought him over in a postchaise, and rode with him over the principal part of the estate. His opinion confirmed my own, nor must I forget to mention that this estate was to be purchased without money as it was offered on its own security in mortgage. In the enclosure of this immense waste, called forest, there were two allotments purchased by the proprietors, one of 1,638 acres, and another of 1,113, in all 2,751 acres, which were a copyhold tenure, at a small fine certain. In addition to which they hired, at the same time, on a long lease, 1,614 acres more, being an allotment to the King, at a rent of 50l. in money, and 50l. to be laid out on improvements. The whole, situated half-way between Knaresboro’ and Skipton, I found walled in; three farmhouses built, with barns and offices of various sorts, and lands annexed, and partly subdivided, to the amount of about 400 acres; the remaining 4,000 in one vast waste. These farms produced the rent of 44l. 5s. The game was let at 30l. with the use of a handsome shooting-box, sufficient for the residence of a small family. Peat dug from the bogs produced from 6l. to 8l. a year; and the great waste was let at 100l. a year, which, for 4,000 acres, is at the rate of sixpence per acre. The annual rental was therefore about 181l. per annum. From these
circumstances it appeared clear to me that the purchase could not well be an unfavourable speculation. 2,750 acres (throwing the leasehold entirely out of the question) for 4,400l. is exactly 32l. an acre fee simple for land that paid a mere trifle in poor rates and land tax,[150] and tithe free; it did not seem therefore to be necessary that the produce should amount to three shillings, for if the rent was reckoned only at one shilling it was but thirtytwo years’ purchase. I determined, therefore, to make it, and concluded the transaction as soon as possible.
My plan was, to let my farm in Suffolk, of about 300 acres, and transfer the capital, with some additions, to the gradual improvement of this large tract; and, in doing this, I should have begun with one farm on the Southern extremity, near the turnpike road, of three or four hundred acres, let separately for 20l. a year, but all a waste, and, in addition to this, have run a watering canal from one of the streams, till from 100 to 200 acres were below the level, walling such tract in. Thus prepared, I found myself at last in a situation to realise the speculations I had so long been busy in—when a new scene of a very different kind opened upon me—but of that hereafter.
The following are the letters of this year reserved. From J. Symonds, Esq., an account of the Duke of Grafton’s illness:—
‘Euston: Jan. 30, 1792.
‘So you tell me that I know not how to stay at home! but this is a visit of pure friendship, for the duke likes very well to chat with me, though he is so nervous as hardly to bear with strangers. Yesterday Lord Clermont, who is very intimate with him, came hither, but he was too much for the duke, and had he not gone away this morning, the duchess would have hinted it gently to him. What would you do with such nerves?
‘Last night, instead of reading a sermon or charge, I read to the whole company (by the duke’s desire) your essays on the place of corn and capital employed in the French husbandry, with which he had been so pleased. Lord Clermont, who has lived much in France, and though a man of pleasure, had inquired
much into the state of that country, was not more delighted than surprised with them. “Well, then,” said the duke, “as you like them so much and intend to buy the book, recommend it as much as possible to your friends in the great world.” This he engaged to do. His Lordship gave a pressing invitation for you and I to pass two or three days with him; he fixed upon the month of May, which will suit me, and, I hope, you.
‘As an inducement I was to tell you that he has marled four hundred and fifty acres with a hundred and twenty loads an acre —this is an object.
‘J S .’
J. W. Coke, Esq., M.P., proposing some laws for the benefit of the poor in their present distress:—
‘Holkham: Oct. 23, 1792.
‘Dear Sir,—I have no better motive to urge for addressing myself to you upon the subject of this letter than that I know of no man so well qualified as yourself to give me the information I stand in need of, should my plan be thought practicable and useful by you, otherwise I should take shame to myself to intrude for a moment on your time, which I esteem so precious, as it is always most usefully employed in the most laudable pursuits.
‘Having turned my thoughts much of late to the most probable causes of the discontent among the lower classes of people in this country, I find that the high price of provisions, especially of bread, has been invariably the motive assigned by them whenever they have assembled in a tumultuous manner. And this is not surprising, as the existence of a poor man’s family must depend upon that last-mentioned necessary article, most truly his staff of life. It is surely, then, the interest, as well as the duty, of the landed proprietors to endeavour by every means that can be devised that the poor may never suffer in this respect. Now, it has occurred to me that perhaps a Bill might be framed to fix an assize on flour according to the average price of wheat.
‘That millers should be obliged to grind for all persons at a certain sum per bushel instead of toll; persons being at liberty to
inspect their corn whilst grinding, and that allowance should be made to millers for any alleged deficiency in grinding. All complaints to be heard in a summary way before a Justice of the Peace, and the complaint to be made within six days. The average price of wheat to be taken from the nearest market at the discretion of the Justice. Penal clauses should also be enacted against millers adulterating wheat and mixing water with the meal to increase its weight.
‘These loose hints I submit to your superior judgment and better information; but, from my own observation, I do suspect the poor suffer greatly from the shameful practices and combinations of the millers, which I should be proud to check by bringing a Bill into Parliament as one of the representatives of the great arable county, should you approve the idea and would have the goodness to lend me your assistance in framing the Bill.
‘I must also mention another cruel grievance to the poor, that there is no legal restraint on shopkeepers in villages respecting their weights and measures.
‘Could no means be devised to protect the buyer from the artifices of the seller without injury to the latter in their honest gains? Why might not magistrates have the power of punishing for short weights and measures, complaint to be made within six days?
‘I remain, dear Sir.
‘Yours very sincerely,
‘J. W. C .’
From Dr. Burney on my ‘Travels’ and his own engagements:—
‘Chelsea College: July 17, 1792
‘My dear Friend,—Your very kind and hearty invitation to Bradfield came at a time when I was utterly unable to answer it. I was just emerged from the sick room into daily hurry and business, for which I was but little fit, and am still detained here by an unusual number of engagements for this time of year, the end of which I am not able to see. If my patients had walked off
as early as I wished them, or if, like other doctors, I could have them put to their long home by a dash of my pen, I really believe I should not have been able to resist the lure you threw out; but now, if I am able to travel, or fit for any house but my own, I have two positive engagements on my hands of long standing: the first to Mickleham, to my daughter, Phillips, where I promised, as soon as I could pronounce myself a convalescent, to go and complete my cure; the other is to Crewe Hall, in Cheshire, whither I have been going more than twice seven years; and at which place I was so sure of arriving last August, that my correspondents, at my request, addressed their letters to me there. This year the claims upon me and Fanny have been so powerfully renewed by Mrs. Crewe that nothing but increased indisposition can resist them. She has promised to carry us down by slow journeys, and, if it should be necessary for me to go to Buxton for my confounded rheumatism (which, though less painful, still deprives me of all use of my left paw), she will even accompany me thither. My poor wife is also in sad health, and we are neither of us fit for anything but to con ailments with those who are as old and infirm as ourselves. But we send you a splinter[151] from us, before we were quite broke up and unfit for service. It is not sufficient to improve your fire of a wet day, but may perhaps be of some little use in the way of kindling.
‘I thank you heartily for your very interesting book of “Travels.” It is in public perusal of an evening, and has fastened on us. The parts of France which you have traversed were to me almost unknown. I never saw the Loire or the Garonne. No one can accuse you of drowsiness, like old Homer and such folks; you are always awake, and keep your readers so. We are now in the midst of that most astonishing of all events, the French Revolution, and like your narrative extremely. Though an enemy to the old tyranny, you neither reason about the rights of man like Wat Tyler or even Tom Payne. You saw coming on all the evils which anarchy has occasioned. You have long seen the futility of theory without practice among French agriculturists, and the political philosophers who think themselves wiser than the experiences of all antiquity, and not content with anything already
done, must needs set about inventing an entire new government, and you see what a fine mess they have made of it.
‘Yours ever,
‘C B .’
From Miss Burney, afterwards Mdme. d’Arblay, writing on some traits of my character, &c.:—
‘Chelsea College: July 17, 1792
‘Nay, if you talk of your difficulties in fabricating an epistle to me, please to consider how much greater are mine in attempting to answer it. You! a country farmer, the acknowledged head of “the only art worth cultivating,” as you tell us,—the contemner of every other pursuit, the scorner of all old customs, the defier of all musty authorities, the derider of all fogrum superiors,—in one word a Jacobin. You afraid? and of whom? a Chelsea pensioner? One who, maimed in the royal service, ignobly forbears, spurning royal reparation? One who, though flying a court, degenerately refrains from hating or even reviling kings, queens, and princesses? One who presumes to wish as well to manufactures for her outside, as to agriculture for her inside? One who has the ignorance to reverence commerce, and who cannot think of a single objection to the Wool Bill? One, in short, and to say all that is abominable at once, one who in theory is an aristocrat, and in practice a ci-devant courtier?
‘And shall a creature of this description, the willing advocate of every opinion, every feeling you excommunicate from “your business and bosom,” dare to write to you? Impossible!
‘Whether I shall come and see you all or not is another matter. If I can I will.
‘P.S. Will Honeycomb says if you would know anything of a lady’s meaning (always providing she has any) when she writes to you, look at her postscript. Now pray, dear sir, how came you ever to imagine what you are pleased to blazon to the world with all the confidence of self-belief, that you think farming the only
thing worth manly attention? You, who, if taste rather than circumstance had been your guide, might have found wreaths and flowers almost any way you had turned, as fragrant as those of Ceres.’
My reply:—
‘You, “the willing advocate of every feeling I excommunicate from my bosom,” knew you had thrown so bitter a potion into your letter that you could not (kind creature!) help a little sweetening in the postscript; but must there in your sweets be some alloy? Could you not conclude without falling foul of poor Ceres?
‘Your letter, or rather your profession of faith, is one of the worst political creeds I remember to have read; you see no merit but beneath a diadem. In government a professed aristocrat, in political economy a monopolist, who commends manufactures, not as a market for the farmer, but for the much nobler purpose of contributing to adorn your outside; and who can attain not one better idea of the immortal plough than that of giving some sustenance to your inside. But, by the way, is not that inside of yours an equivoque? Do you mean your real or your metaphorical inside, your ribs or your feelings? If you allude to your brains, they are by your own account a wool-gathering. Do you mean your heart, and that the philosophical contemplation of so pure an engine as the plough is the sustenance of your best emotions? How will that agree with the panegyrist of a court and the satirist of a farm? Or is it that this inside of yours is a mere bread and cheese cupboard, which, certes, the plough can furnish? Or is it a magic lanthorn full of gay delusions, lighted by tallow from the belly of a sheep? Till you have settled these doubts, I know not which you prefer, manufactures for improving your complection, or agriculture for farming your heart. Nor must you wonder at such questions arising while you use terms that leave one in doubt whether you mean your head or your tail. I know something of the one; the other is a metaphor. Though there is high treason against the plough in almost every line of
your letter, yet the words If I can I will are not in the spirit that contains the Eleusinian mysteries; they bring balm to my wounded feelings.’
CHAPTER X
THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, 1793
The Board of Agriculture Secretaryship Residence in London Twentyfive dinners a month The King’s bull The Marquis de Castries ‘The Example of France’ Encomiums thereof Correspondence.
The most remarkable event of this year was the establishment of the Board of Agriculture.[152] I found that Mr. Pitt had determined that I should be secretary, and Mr. Le Blanc, of Caversham, informed me that this new board was established with a view of rewarding me for my ‘Example of France.’ In a conversation with Lord Loughborough on the attendance required, he remarked, ‘You may do what suits yourself best, I conceive, for we all consider ourselves so much obliged to you that you cannot be rewarded in a manner too agreeably.’ If the appointment of secretary be considered, as it has been by many, a reward for what I had effected, it was not a magnificent one; the salary, 400l. per annum, would have been desirable had it left me more time in Suffolk, but when I found a very strict attendance attached to it, with no house to assemble in except Sir John Sinclair’s, and in a room common to the clerks and all comers, I was much disposed to throw it up and go back in disgust to my farm; but the advice of others and the apprehension of family reproaches kept me to the annoyance of a situation not ameliorated till Sir John was turned out of the Presidentship by Mr. Pitt, and the Board procured a house for itself.
My letter to Mr. Pitt, asking for the secretaryship of the new Board of Agriculture:—
‘Bradfield Hall: May 20, 1793.
‘Sir,—I am informed by Lord Sheffield and Sir John Sinclair that the establishment of a Board of Agriculture is determined.
‘It has been the employment of the last thirty years of my life to make myself as much a master of the practice and the political encouragement of agriculture as my talents would allow I have examined every part of the kingdom, and have farming correspondents in all the counties.
‘It is impossible I should know what is your intention in relation to the office of the secretary; but the same wisdom that established the Board will, without doubt, give such an appointment to that office as may fill it in a manner the best adapted to the business.
‘Should I be happy enough to appear in your eyes qualified for such a post, and you would have the goodness to name me to it, it might lessen the anxieties of a life that has been passed in the service of the national agriculture; and I should feel with unvarying gratitude the obligation of the favour.
‘I have the honour to be, sir, with the greatest respect, ‘Your most humble and obedient servant, ‘A Y .’
My reply to George Rose, Esq., on his communicating to me Mr. Pitt’s approbation of my appointment:—
‘Bradfield Hall: May 30, 1793.
‘Sir,—It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the receipt of your letter, as it shows that, whatever may be the result of the present business, my exertions have met with the approbation of Government, whose public-spirited and laudable views I have long been solicitous to second.
‘The salary you mention is, I confess, less than I imagined would be assigned to the office, but its being adequate or not depends entirely on the circumstances of attendance, duty, residence, &c. If these be arranged on a footing any way liberal, the sum is equal to my desires; and I shall in that case accept
the office with pleasure. If, on the contrary, these points be so fixed as to overturn my present pursuits in life, they would render a larger salary less valuable to me than the sum you mention.
‘From the nature of the Board, intended to consist, as I understand, of members of the two Houses, with the objects in view, I take it for granted that the points above mentioned may, without the least impediment to the business, be easily arranged. ‘Trusting in this entirely to Mr. Pitt and yourself, I beg your good offices that, if I should have improperly expressed my meaning, you will do me the justice to rely on the integrity of my views, and not imagine me eager in making a bargain for profit with a great and liberal benefactor.
‘I have the honour to remain &c.
‘A Y .’
What a change in the destination of a man’s life! Instead of becoming the solitary lord of four thousand acres, in the keen atmosphere of lofty rocks, and mountain torrents, with a little creation rising gradually around me, making the black desert smile with cultivation, and grouse give way to industrious population, active and energetic, though remote and tranquil, and, every instant of my existence, making two blades of grass to grow where not one was found before—behold me at a desk in the smoke, the fog, the din of Whitehall. ‘Society has charms’—true; and so has solitude to a mind employed. But the die is cast, and my steps may still be said, metaphorically, to be in the furrow. My pleasures are of another sort; I see daily a noble activity of zeal in the service of the national husbandry in the President—of that happy effort of royal patriotism, commendable and exemplary; and I see in so many great and distinguished characters such a disinterested attention to the public good, and such liberality of spirit in promoting it, that the view is cheering, whether in a capital or a desert.
The two situations were incompatible with each other. I therefore advertised the estate for sale; and nothing proves to me how very ill understood waste lands are in this kingdom than the advertisement being repeated near a twelvemonth before I
could sell it with much less profit than I had reason to expect. So large a contiguous tract, in many respects so eligible for improvement, I thought would have been a favourite object with numbers; as to the ignorance of those who viewed and rejected it, I can only pity them.
The attention I received from individuals was, however, very flattering, for I find, by an old memorandum book, that I dined out from twenty-five to thirty days in the month, and had, in that time, forty invitations from people of the highest rank and consequence. Here I copy a memorandum made at the time: August 21, ‘I feel an advancement of a certain kind since the publication of my Travels, well calculated to add agreeably to a new sphere in life by means of this new Board; but how it will turn out is not easy to conjecture, and my “Example of France: a Warning to Great Britain”[153] is applauded in a manner of which I had not the slightest conception. The Ministry commend it most highly, and express themselves in [a way] truly gratifying to my feelings. The last time I was in town, the Chancellor dwelt on the idea of how much they were all obliged to me, and treated me as a man that must be gratified when I was explaining my wish to reside but little in London. And Rose’s report from Mr. Pitt was equal; his own expression was that I had beat all rivalship and produced the most useful work printed on the occasion, &c. Thus I come with all the advantages I could wish—and I could see in every eye and hear from every tongue of numbers to whom Sir John Banks introduced me on the Terrace at Windsor that I was considered as one to whom the nation was obliged. The King spoke to me, but not so graciously as some years before; and this brought to my mind a visit which Mr. Majendie and his brother, the Canon of Windsor, paid me at Bradfield, when the latter asked me in a very significant manner whether I had not said something against the King’s bull, as it was commonly reported that I had fallen foul of his Majesty’s dairy; so I suppose the man who showed me the cattle reported to the King every word I had said of them, and possibly with additions. Who is it that says one should be careful in a court not to offend even a dog? However, Sir J. Sinclair reported to me some days
afterwards that his Majesty had expressed to him great satisfaction at my appointment to the secretaryship of the Board.’
About this time I met Sir John Macpherson, from Bengal, but now from Italy. He came by the Rhine; had a conversation with the King of Prussia on my ‘Travels,’ which his Majesty was reading, and commended greatly. He saw also the Marshal de Castries,[154] who was likewise reading them, and praised me in the highest terms. Sir John Macpherson told him that he had found my accounts of Lombardy so uncommonly just and accurate that he intended seeing the author as soon as he arrived in England. ‘Tell him, then,’ said the marshal, ‘that I did not know France till I read his admirable work, which astonishes me for its truth, and extent and justness of observation;’ and the next day he wrote to him pointing out an error of mine in the passage relating to his opening the French West Indies to foreign navigation. No man can speak in higher terms of a book than Sir John does of this. He says it is the best that ever was published. It is something whimsical that the ladies should tell me it is as entertaining as a romance, and that statesmen should praise it for its information. Faith! I had need be flattered to be kept in good humour—losing my time doing nothing in London in August.
September 9.—Dined at Pinherring’s, the American ambassador; he is a gentleman-like man; but for his company, though this was a great entertainment, there was such a motley group as would be difficult to find; they were so indelicate as to call for a war with England.
I preserved the following among letters of this year:—
From the Countess of Bristol
‘January 4, 1793.
‘Dear Sir,—In spite of a bad cold, which makes me very heavy and ill qualified to write to un homme d’esprit, I must say a word or two in answer to your letter, and also assure you that the one you enclosed for Lord Bristol was forwarded by the same post to his agent in town.
‘Do I recollect reading your "Travels"? Yes, certainly, and the great pleasure and instruction I received from them; but the approbation, I assure you, came from a better quarter, or I should not have presumed on its being worth your acceptance. However that may be, I am much pleased with the effect, and fairly confess that I did wish to set your pen a-going, because you had experience and facts to write upon, and that I knew your warm colouring would suit the picture—in short, I saw you were a convert. I wished you to make others, and if I have been the least instrumental by awakening the spark in you, I shall feel that I am not wholly useless to the community where providence has placed me. I think everybody with talents is called upon, particularly at this time, to use them for the good of their once happy country, and I know of no one better qualified than yourself to employ your eloquence usefully.
‘The pamphlet you mention, of an earnest address to farmers, was brought to me amongst others, and I immediately said it was yours—but pray rescue it from its mangled state and print it again as it was written. I flatter myself that you intend to send me the “Example of France: A Warning to Britain,” for which, I assure you, I am very impatient.
‘I write from Lord Abercorn’s, and wish I could hear anything, but upon every subject there is at this moment an awful pause. It is hoped that the Alien Bill may be passed to-morrow, it is so much wanted, and that the wretched state of the French armies and their dissentions at home may make it unnecessary for us to declare war. Three Prussian officers of rank have been arrested for treasonable correspondence with Dumouriez, which, they say, is to explain the Duke of Brunswick’s retreat; and now it is supposed that Custine’s army cannot escape him.
‘I saw two gentlemen who were in Paris a fortnight ago, and who told me that the treasury would hold out very little longer, that bread was scarce, commerce destroyed, and the people either in fury or despair, the whole town affording a melancholy scene of poverty, distrust and disorder—houses shut up, public buildings destroyed, churches turned into warehouses, &c. &c.
‘For want of better materials I send you a print which I think is not a bad one, considering the double part Mr. Fox has acted. I thank you for enquiring after my daughters. Lady Erne is not yet returned from Hampshire, Lady Elizabeth is with the Duchess of Devonshire at Florence, and Lady Louisa is here, and desires her compliments.
‘I am, sincerely yours, ‘E. B .’
From the same
‘Bruton Street: March 20, 1793.
‘Dear Sir,—I have just seen in the True Briton of this morning that the thanks of the association at the “Crown and Anchor” were voted to you for your last publication, which, I assure you, gives me great pleasure; at the same time it reminds me that I have too long deferred mine, but which I now beg you will accept. I like it very much, and think it is admirably well written, and calculated to inform the ignorant and deluded of their real danger. I should have told you so long ago, but waited to hear the opinions of those from which I thought you would receive more satisfaction; and I can now assure you that your pamphlet is much liked by Lord Orford and several others of good judgment. And I think you may, without flattery, consider yourself as one of the means which has rescued this glorious country from the destruction which was preparing for it.
‘There are great events impending just now. I pray God to direct them for our good.
‘I am, dear sir,
‘Your sincere humble servant, ‘E. B .’
From Lord Bristol (Bishop of Derry), objections to my proposal for selling all lambs at Harrington Fair.
‘Ratisbon: Jan. 17, 1793.
‘My dear Arthur,—Why will you make me a request with which I cannot in prudence comply? And why must I say No to a man whom I wish only to answer with Yes? You are as great a quack in farming as I once was in politics, and therefore, knowing the force of the term, I must be on my guard against you.
‘No reform, dear Arthur, at this time of day. Ipswich has an old prescriptive right to our lambs—we have sold them well at that market; buyers are accustomed to it; have their connections there of every kind; may very possibly not come to Horningheath for many years. Let the buyers advertise that they wish to change the market, and I, though a great heretic against most establishments, will be none against them. Adieu! magnanimous Arthur. Reserve your prowess for a greater object than distressing poor Ipswich by bereaving it of its ancient patrimony.
‘We have a sheep fair here, too, at Ratisbon, but of old horned rams, and not of young Suffolk lambs.
‘Yours cordially,
‘B .’
From Thomas Law, Esq., who resided long in Bengal, on the application of the Corn Laws.
‘Weymouth Street: Jan 5, 1793
‘Sir,—I have fortunately obtained the perusal of your “Travels,” and the sentiments conveyed therein so totally coincide with my observations of eighteen years upon the extensive continent of Asia, that, upon your arrival in town, I shall be happy to convey to you any information in my power respecting the agriculture of Bengal, Behar, and Benares.
‘When a member of a grain committee during a drought, I pursued your system, which coincides with that of Adam Smith, viz.: All our object was to prevent impediments to the free transport of corn, being convinced that it would be removed from an abundant province to one which was less productive, and, like water, find its level, and that the interest of merchants would convey it from cheap places to dear ones, and thus promote the general good. I could impart to you many fatal instances of the
intervention of powers by fixing the price and by forcing corn to market.
‘I can show you the thanks of a resident who presided in the capital of an extensive district threatened with a famine, and who wrote to me asking my opinion upon the following propositions: First, “Shall I raise subscriptions to supply the poor with rice at this crisis?” Answer, “You will thereby not only encourage a concourse to your city of persons whose expectations will be deceived, as their numbers will exceed the amount of your gratuities, and you will thereby destroy many; but you will enhance the price in the city.” Secondly, “Shall I compel the granaries to be opened, and fix a moderate price?” Answer, “By no means. You will thereby deter the merchants from bringing grain to market, and will thereby starve your inhabitants. Your power can only extend to a certain limit, and within that the merchant will not enter. If supplies are coming to you, those who have grain for sale will have advice of it, and hurry their grain to market; but if you compel them, you will stop all imports by such forcible interference. Have you calculated at what price the merchant buys at a distance, at what expense he brings it, &c.? In short, you have the choice of the alternative—whether for a day or two you will submit to want, and then be relieved by the exertions of those who always hasten to a good market; or whether you will gain popularity for a day or two by a compulsory expenditure of the quantity within your grasp, and then fall a martyr to an exasperated starving people.” He adopted the first, and thanked me in the strongest terms.
‘About that time, when Government intended to purchase grain to supply certain places, I protested against it, because those places would entirely rely upon Government management; for no merchant would convey to places where Government by a sudden import might overflow the market—if London were to be supplied with every want by a contract or monopoly, the effect is easily foreseen.
‘In respect to a fixed land tax, I can show you some very satisfactory papers upon the subject; as I had to contend against some very able advocates for periodical equalisation, and at
length have obtained a fixed land tax for ever In Asia we have metayers, as in France; we have surveyors of the crop. In short, to a gentleman of your philosophic and agricultural turn I may prove a welcome referee. To the many pertinent questions you will put, you will, no doubt, find many deficient replies, for I am conscious of having omitted much. Unluckily I had never seen your able productions, and had too often to find the truth by the experience of error.
‘Many serious evils may be prevented if a person of your influence could have conveyed to Asia your sentiments upon taxation, the corn, trade, &c., for the perusal of the several servants entrusted with the charge of vast districts with numerous industrious subjects. If Necker committed such palpable mistakes after so much experience, must not young men in the company’s service be subject to fatal errors where the instruction of books is not always to be attained, or the advice of the well-informed, as in Europe?
‘I remain, with respect, sir,
‘Your most obedient humble servant, ‘T L .’
From the Right Hon. Edmund Burke, highly praising the ‘Example of France’:—
Mr. Burke thanks Mr. Young for his most able, useful and reasonable pamphlet. He has not seen anything written in this controversy which stands better bottomed upon practical principle, or is more likely to produce an effect on the popular mind. It is, indeed, incomparably well done. We are all very much obliged to Mr. Young, and think the Committee ought to circulate his book.
‘Duke Street, St. James’s: March 5, 1793.’
From Dr. Burney, on my ‘Example of France,’ &c.:—
‘Chelsea College: May 12, 1793.
