Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India

7. Sara Suleri, The Rhetoric of English India (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992); Sanjay Seth, Subject Lessons: The Western Education of Colonial India (Durham: Duke University Press, 2007). Two recent monographs examine the place of religion and sexuality, respectively, in colonial English studies: Parna Sengupta, Pedagogy for Religion: Missionary Education and the Fashioning of Hindus and Muslims in Bengal (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011), and Shefali Chandra, The Sexual Life of English: Languages of Caste and Desire in Colonial India (Durham: Duke University Press, 2012).

8. Richard D. Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public, 1800–1900 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1957); Patrick Brantlinger, The Reading Lesson: The Threat of Mass Literacy in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998).

9. Lisa Lowe, “Decolonization, Displacement, Disidentification: Asian American ‘Novels’ and the Question of History,” in Cultural Institutions of the Novel, edited by Deidre Lynch and William B. Warner (Durham: Duke University Press, 1996), pp. 97–98.

10. Joseph Slaughter, Human Rights, Inc.: The World Novel, Narrative Form, and International Law (New York: Fordham University Press, 2007), p. 19.

11. Gianni Vattimo, paper presented at a UNESCO conference on “Media and Social Perceptions,” Rio de Janeiro, May 18–20, 1998.

12. Gauri Viswanathan, “Subjecting English and the Question of Representation,” Disciplinar it y at the F in-de-Siècle, edited by Amanda Anderson and Joseph Valente (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 177–195.

13. W. H. G. Armytage, Four Hundred Years of English Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964), p. 36.

14. John Milton, “Of Education,” in Milton on Education: The Tractate “Of Education” edited by Oliver Morley Ainsworth (1928; repr., St. Clair Shores, Michigan: Scholarly, 1970), p. 55.

15. Ian Hunter, “Literary Theory in Civil Life,” South Atlantic Quarterly 95, no. 4 (Fall 1996):1099–1134.

16. Simon During, “Literary Subjectivity,” ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature 31, nos. 1 and 2 (2000):33–50.

17. Jamaica Kincaid, Lucy (New York: Penguin, 1990), pp. 18–19.

1. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, eds. (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), p. 57.

2. Minute by J. Farish dated August 28, 1838, quoted in B. K. Boman-Behram, Educational Controversies of India, p. 239.

3. See D. J. Palmer, The Rise of English Studies; Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory; Chris Baldick, The Social Mission of English Criticism; Peter Widdowson, eds., Re-Reading English; Janet Batsleer et al., Re-writing English: Cultural Politics of Gender and Class; and Colin McCabe, “Towards a Modern Trivium—English Studies Today.”

4. See also Richard Altick, The English Common Reader, p. 161. As a result of the pressure exerted by Matthew Arnold, new sets of textbooks were produced and adapted for the new Mundella’s Code of 1883 empowering inspectors to hear children in standards five, six, and seven read from books of extracts from standard authors. The new subject of “English literature” was introduced in 1871, and it consisted of memorizing of passages of poetry and testing knowledge of meaning and allusions. By 1880, according to Altick, “English literature” had become the most popular subject in schools. The Taunton Commission found that very few schools gave lessons in English literature even as late as the mid-1860s.

5. Richard Poirier, “What is English Studies, and If You Know What That Is, What Is English Literature?,” in Gregory T. Polleta, ed., Issues in Contemporary Literary Theory, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), p. 558.

6. Terry Eagleton, Criticism and Ideology, p. 57.

7. Culling through nineteenth-century periodicals like the Asiatic Journal and the Oriental Herald, one will be struck by the number of articles on the Oriental tale, that species of literature imported into England for consumption in fashionable literary salons and polite circles. The Oriental tale ranged from direct translations of works like the Arabian Nights to complete adaptations to Western themes, such as Addison’s Vision of Mirza, Johnson’s Rasselas, Southey’s Curse of Kehama, and Thomas Moore’s Lalla Rookh. While some articles in these periodicals deplored the extravagance of imagery in Oriental literature as unbefitting the more sober strains of classical Western literature, a surprisingly large majority found morality of sentiment in the tales, as well as charm and elegance and inventiveness of expression in them. Cf. “Every Oriental tale has generally for its aim the illustration of some point in morality: sometimes destiny, sometimes conduct and virtue.” “Excellence of Oriental Tales,” Oriental Herald (1824), 1:422.

8. One of the later criticisms of British educational policy made by British administrators themselves was its inattention to amusement as a legitimate motive for reading. The Indian Education Commission Report of 1882 pleaded the need of Indian students for the kind of extensive reading that English boys were accustomed to. “An English boy at the same stage of instruction will find in the Waverly Novels, in voyages and travels, and in tales of danger and daring, an unending source of delight for his leisure hours. To the native relaxation of this kind is denied.” Further, added the report, the Indian’s familiarity with English was never so great that he could read books in that language for the sake of amusement. Report of the Indian Education Commission, February 3, 1882, p. 231.

9. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Trevelyan, 32:198.

10. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of the Rev. J. Tucker, 32:349.

11. “On the Inefficacy of the Means Now in Use for the Propagation of Christianity in India,” Oriental Herald, (1825), p. 587.

12. Alexander Duff, India and India Missions, p. 429.

13. For a discussion of comparable developments in the administrative structures of Britain and India in the early nineteenth century see Eric Stokes, “Bureaucracy and Ideology in the 19th Century,” pp. 131–156. Stokes argues that financial stringency and the need for centralized control joined the histories of Britain and India in a common ideological purpose. Specifically, Stokes considers the reformist period of Bentinck (1828–1835) to have had the greatest mirroring effect on British institutions.

14. Raymond Williams, “Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Analysis,” p. 7.

15. Benita Parry, “Problems in Current Theories of Colonial Discourse,” p. 34.

16. Edward W. Said, Orientalism, pp. 58–59.

17. Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of W. Keane, 32:203.

18. David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance, p. 275.

19. Thomas B. Macaulay, “Speech in the House of Commons, dated 2 February, 1835,” in G. W. Young, ed., Speeches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), pp. 153–54. This speech should not be confused with the better known minute of July 1835, though its significance in shaping British official opinion toward India was in no way less.

20. Pierre Bourdieu, “Systems of Education and Systems of Thought,” in Michael F. D. Young, ed., Knowledge and Control, p. 194.

21. See William Spanos, “The Apollonian Investment of Modern Humanist Education: The Examples of Matthew Arnold, Irving Babbit, and I. A. Richards,” Cultural Critique (Fall 1985), 1(1):7–72.

22. Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, John Dover Wilson, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 44–54.

23. Matthew Arnold, Essays Literary and Critical, G. K. Chesterton, ed. (London and New York: Everyman Library, 1906), p. 71.

24. C. E. Trevelyan, On the Education of the People of India, p. 176.

25. Edward W. Said, Beginnings, p. 12.

1. Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, 26:562.

2. Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, 26:830.

3. Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, 26:830.

4. See P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, “Gentlemanly Capitalism and British Expansion Overseas: 1. The Old Colonial System, 1688–1850,” pp. 501–525, for an elaboration of the argument that “gentleman capitalists” were more important than industrialization in shaping British imperialism after 1700.

5. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–1832, General Appendix, “Observations on the State of Society among our Asiatic Subjects,” 8:10. Henceforth abbreviated as “Observations.”

6. “Observations,” p. 17.

7. “Observations,” p. 20.

8. “Observations,” p. 80.

9. “Observations,” p. 80.

10. Ninth Report of Select Committee on the Affairs of India, 1783, quoted in Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India, p. 2.

11. Adam’s Reports on Vernacular Education in Bengal and Bihar in 1835 and 1838, p. 340.

12. Letter of Hastings to Nathaniel Smith, October 4, 1784, quoted in David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance, p. 18.

13. Percival Spear, Oxford History of Modern India 1740–1975 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965), p. 89.

14. Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India, p. 16.

15. Cf. “To allure the natives of India to the study of European science and literature, we must, I think, engraft this study upon their own established methods of scientific and literary institutions, and particularly in all the public colleges or schools maintained or encouraged by government, good translations of the most useful European compositions on the subjects taught in them, may, I conceive, be introduced with the greatest advantage.” Paper by J. H. Harington, June 19, 1814, quoted in Adam’s Reports on Vernacular Education in Bengal and Bihar, p. 310.

16. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, appendix I, Minute of James Mill, 9:408.

17. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, 9:489.

18. C. H. Philips, The East India Company 1784–1834 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1940; rev. ed., 1961), p. 8. See also William D. Grampp, “How Britain Turned to Free Trade,” pp. 86–112, for a discussion of the influence of Hume and Adam Smith on gaining unanimous support for free trade as a means of raising England’s real income.

19. Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, 26:1027.

20. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Appendix I, Extract of Letter in the Public Department, from the Court of Directors to the Governor-General-in-Council, dated September 6, 1813, 9:486.

21. Thomas B. Macaulay, Speeches, p. 345.

22. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, appendix 1, Extract of Letter in the Public Department, from the Court of Directors to the Governor-General in Council of Bengal, dated September 5, 1827, 9:488.

23. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, appendix I, 9:488.

24. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, appendix I, 9:488.

25. Eric Stokes, The English Utilitarians and India, p. 58.

26. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Horace Wilson, 29:7.

27. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Horace Wilson, 29:19.

28. Calcutta Review, (1845), 3(6):229–230.

29. “Of Government Education in Bengal,” Calcutta Review (1845) 3; 259.

30. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix K, 32:484.

31. The direct influence of Macaulay’s minute on this act is by no means an accepted historical fact. Percival Spear sees both Macaulay and Bentinck as merely agents and not initiators of a new educational policy already decided upon by the Company’s Court of Directors. “Bentinck and Education,” 78–101. K. A. Ballhatchet, on the other hand, argues that Bentinck’s position favoring English was forged in India, with little influence coming from the home government. “The Home Government and Bentinck’s Educational Policy,” 224–229.

32. Horace Wilson, “Education of the Natives of India,” Asiatic Journal (1836), 29:14.

33. “General Progress of Education, and Obstacles to Its Introduction in British India,” Oriental Herald (November 1825), 7(3):491.

34. Alexander Duff, New Era of the English Language and English Literature in India, p. 22.

35. Duff, New Era of the English Language and English Literature in India, p. 30.

36. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of William Wilberforce Bird, 32:237.

37. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix E, The English Education Act of Lord William Bentinck, 32:408.

38. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Thomas A. Wise, 32:222.

1. Atheneum (1839), p. 108.

2. “The Evils of Poetry,” Asiatic Journal (1825), 19:772.

3. “Review of Nalodaya by Kalidasa,” Calcutta Review (1845), 3:33.

4. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, appendix 1, Report of A. D. Campbell, August 17, 1823, 32:503.

5. Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Horace Wilson, 32:264.

6. George Smith, The Life of Alexander Duff, D.D., LL.D (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1879), 2:291.

7. A. M. C. Waterman in “The Ideological Alliance of Political Economy to Christian Theology, 1798–1833,” pp. 231–244, draws attention to Thomas Chalmers’ kinship with Malthus, William Paley, Edward Copleston, Richard Whately, and J. B. Sumner, all of whose works maintain a belief in the reciprocity of Christian theology and political economy, that is, the inseparability of moral virtue from material realities such as private property, population, and wealth.

8. George Smith, Life of Alexander Duff, p. 78.

9. George Smith, The Story of Dr. Duff (London and Madras: Christian Literature Society for India, 1898), p. 18.

10. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Edward Thornton, 32:36.

11. Alexander Duff, The Indian Rebellion, pp. 99–106.

12. Alexander Duff, The India and India Missions, p. 430.

13. Alexander Duff, India and India Missions, p. 587.

14. Alexander Duff, Letters to Lord Auckland, p. 58.

15. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix D, General Report of Public Instruction in the North-Western Provinces of the Bengal Presidency, 1843–4, by J. Muir, 32:450–451.

16. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix N, 32:491–572. The information about Macaulay is provided on page 148 of the same volume.

17. See Amy Cruse, The Victorians and Their Books, p. 16.

18. “The Power of Moral Painting,” Madras Missionary Register (February 1836), 2 (i):36.

19. Calcutta Christian Observer (1833), 2:87.

20. David Newsome, Godliness and Good Learning, p. 6.

21. Fred Clarke, Education and Social Change, p. 25.

22. T. W. Bamford, “Thomas Arnold and the Victorian Idea of a Public School,” in Brian Simon and Ian Bradley, ed., The Victorian Public School (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1975), p. 63.

23. Ellen McDonald, “English Education and Social Reform in Late Nineteenth Century Bombay,” pp. 466–467.

24. Lal Behari Day, Recollections of Alexander Duff, D.D., LL.D., p. 46.

25. Lal Behari Day, Recollections of Alexander Duff, D.D., LL.D., p. 51.

26. Alexander Duff, India and India Missions, p. 545.

27. Missionary Register, November 1825, quoted in “Missionary Efforts in India,” Asiatic Journal (1826), 21:450.

28. Alexander Duff, India and India Missions, p. 427.

29. Alexander Duff, A Vindication of the Church of Scotland’s India Missions: An Address before the General Assembly of the Church, May 24, 1837 (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1837), p. 32.

30. Duff, India and India Missions, p. 563.

31. Duff, India and India Missions, p. 507.

32. Duff, Vindication, p. 33.

33. Duff, India and India Missions, p. 429.

34. T. W. Bamford, Thomas Arnold (London: Cresset Press, 1960), p. 122.

1. Michalina Vaughan and Margaret Archer, Social Conflict and Educational Change in England and France 1789–1848 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), p. 10.

2. Quoted in M. G. Jones, The Charity School Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938), p. 74.

3. M. G. Jones, The Charity School Movement, pp. 373–375.

4. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Minute of the Marquess of Tweeddale on Education, July 1846, 29:190.

5. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, General Appendix, “Observations on the State of Society among Our Asiatic Subjects,” 8:80. Henceforth abbreviated “Observations.”

6. “Observations,” p. 34.

7. “Observations,” p. 82.

8. “Observations,” p. 83.

9. “Observations,” p. 81.

10. “Observations,” p. 10.

11. Both Grant and Wilberforce quote rather extensively from the reports of police commissions in India, which address the problem of crime in quasi-religious terms. Cf. “If we would apply a lasting remedy to the evil, we must adopt means of instruction for the different classes of the community, by which they may be restrained, not only from the commission of public crimes, but also from acts of immorality, by a dread of the punishments denounced both in this world and in a future state.” Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, “The Propagation of Christianity,” 26:841.

12. “Observations,” p. 51.

13. “Observations,” p. 80.

14. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of the Rev. W. Keane, 32:301.

15. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of the Rev. W. Keane, 32:313.

16. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Major F. Rowlandson, 29:155.

17. “Observations,” p. 75.

18. Reports and Documents on the Indian Mission, p. 115.

19. “A Sketch of the Origin, Rise, and Progress of Hindoo College,” Calcutta Christian Observer (June-December 1832), 1:124.

20. Papers Referring to the Educational Operations of the Church Missionary Society in North India, p. 5.

21. “Literary Fruits of Missionary Labours,” Calcutta Review (1845), 3:44.

22. “Progress of Education in British India,” Asiatic Journal (1826), 21:322.

23. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of J. C. Marshman, 29:26.

24. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Minute by M. Elphinstone, December 13, 1823, 29:519.

25. “The Hindu Character,” Asiatic Journal (1828), 26:692.

26. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Thomas Wise, 32:233.

27. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of W. Keane, 32:233.

28. Calcutta Review, 19:131–132.

29. Madras Christian Instructor and Missionary Record (September 1844), 11(4):195.

30. Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of the Rev. W. Keane, 32:202.

31. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of the Rev. J. Kennedy, 29:171.

32. Calcutta Review (1853), 9:127.

33. Madras Christian Instructor and Missionary Record (September 1844), 1(4):185.

34. “Evils of Poetry,” Asiatic Journal (1825), 19:774.

35. “Evils of Poetry,” p. 774.

36. The gradual shift from the early Utilitarian and Evangelical attitude to poetry as error and deception to a greater acceptance of its elevating properties began to be felt some time between 1820 and 1830 and was vitally linked with the attempt to restore poetry to its original union with religion. The shift coincided with an increasing recognition that English literature and Christianity shared a common fate and that if one was in decline, the other was too, for “what was true of the long prevailing literature of Europe, appeared substantially true of its long established religion.” Papers on Baptist Missions: Minutes and Reports of a Conference of the Baptist Missions of the Northwest Provinces, 1855 (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1856), p. 28.

37. Papers on Baptist Missions, p. 13.

38. Reports and Documents on the Indian Mission, p. 16.

39. “Prospectus of London Missionaries at Madras,” Oriental Herald (October 1828), 19:493.

40. Reports and Documents on the Indian Mission, p. 82.

41. Alexander Duff, India and India Missions, p. 288.

42. Reports and Documents on the Indian Mission, p. 248.

43. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” Oriental Herald (October 1828), 19:491.

44. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” p. 493.

45. Asiatic Journal, 8:285.

46. Papers on Baptist Missions: Minutes and Reports of a Conference of the Baptist Missions of the Northwest Provinces, 1855 (Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press, 1856), p. 28.

47. “Letter of Duff, Trevelyan, and W. H. Pearce to Friends of Education in India,” Calcutta Christian Observer (January-December 1834), 3:350.

48. Calcutta Christian Observer (1834), 3:359.

49. Charles E. Trevelyan, On the Education of the People of India, p. 74.

50. Madras Christian Instructor and Missionary Record (January 18 44), 1 (8): 46.

51. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Evidence of Thomas Wise, 32:29.

52. William Ward, A View of the History, Literature, and Mythology of the Hindoos, 2d ed. (Serampore: Mission Press, 1818), p. 598.

53. Eustace Carey, ed., Memoirs of William Carey, D.D., p. 151.

54. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of F. J. Halliday, 29:56.

55. “General Progress of Education, and Obstacles to Its Introduction in British India,” Oriental Herald (November 1825), 7(23):491.

56. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Minute by Francis Warden, December 29, 1823, 9:520.

57. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, 32:32.

58. John Murdoch, Education in India, p. 91. Murdoch, who was with the Christian Vernacular Society of Madras and organized supplies of vernacular and English literature for native schools, did an intensive analysis of Hindu texts in order to determine their suitability for rearing trustworthy servants of the Empire. He submitted examples to Lord Napier and Lord Ripon to urge stronger government control of reading materials.

59. “System of Education Adapted to India,” Oriental Herald and Colonial Review, (January-April 1824), 1:261. Cf. the testimony of a Roman Catholic bishop in the Indian Education Commission: “Education has for its object to direct the children of the people towards the same end towards which the law and the government of the land direct their parents,” the object of all law and government being “to guide the people towards happiness.” Education Commission, Report by the Bombay Provincial Committee, p. 378.

60. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of James Mill, February 21, 1832, 9:46.

61. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of James Mill, February 21, 1832, 9:56.

62. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of James Mill, February 21, 1832, 9:57.

63. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of James Mill, February 21, 1832, 9:57.

64. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–3, Evidence of Trevelyan, 32:164.

65. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Appendix J, 9:413.

66. Report of the Indian Education Commission, p. 308.

67. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47:2.

68. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47:14.

69. Chief Justice Sir Charles Turner’s address to the University of Madras, quoted in Report of the Indian Education Commission, p. 302.

1. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–3, Evidence of Charles Trevelyan, 32:185.

2. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Cameron, 32:287.

3. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Cameron, 32:287.

4. Homi K. Bhabha, “Signs Taken for Wonders, p. 153.

5. Eustace Carey, ed., Memoirs of William Carey, D.D., p. 151.

6. “Literary Fruits of Missionary Labours,” Calcutta Review (1845), 3:49.

7. See S. Cromwell Crawford, Ram Mohan Roy, pp. 64–88, for a discussion of the influence of Unitarianism, especially American Unitarianism, on Bengali intellectuals. Unitarianism’s deemphasis of doctrinal points, its adherence to the belief drawn from the Bible that the “unity of God accompanied by its appropriate expression in moral conduct is the only prerequisite for finding favor with God,” had huge appeal for young Indians.

8. The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, quoted in S. Cromwell Crawford, Ram Mohan Roy, p. 67.

9. For an exhaustive study of Halhed’s career as a Sanskritist, see Rosane Rocher, Orientalism, Poetry, and the Millennium, 1983.

10. Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, 1813, “The Propagation of Christianity, 26:840.

11. The signatures on the dispatch, dated August 18, 1824, from the General Committee of Public Instruction to the governor-general include those of J. H. Harington, J. P. Larkins, W. W. Martin, J. C. C. Sutherland, Henry Shakespear, Holt Mackenzie, Horace Wilson, A. Stirling, and W. B. Bayley. Henry Sharp, ed., Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781–1839) (Calcutta: National Archives of India, 1920), p. 98.

12. Henry Sharp, ed., Selections from Educational Records, p. 96.

13. “Letter of John Tytler to T. B. Macaulay, Calcutta, January 26, 1835,” quoted in Gerald and Natalie Sirkin, “The Battle of Indian Education,” p. 425.

14. Kenneth Ingham, Reformers in India 1793–1833.

15. Calcutta Review (1845), 3:35.

16. Northampton MS., William Carey to Andrew Fuller, April 23, 1796, cited in M. A. Laird, Missionaries and Education in Bengal 1793–1837, p. 56.

17. “Missionary Efforts in India,” Asiatic Journal (1826), 21:447.

18. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix B, Report of Warden, President of the Board of Education at Bombay, April 1853, 32:377.

19. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of J. C. Marshman, 29:26.

20. Significantly, the British anxiety about being mistrusted by their subjects also formed the basis of British interpretations of Indian texts. The view that Indian teachings encouraged lying and deception was extended to explain the “treachery” of Nana Sahib at Kanpur in 1857. John Murdoch, commissioned to conduct a detailed investigation into ancient Indian texts to determine the level of morality in them, wrote of the permission the laws of Manu granted to the breaking of those oaths that were made in the utmost solemnity. The evidence he cites is the Brahmin prime minister Maha-Kalinga telling Dhriti, “In seeking reconciliation with a foe, lull his suspicions with the most solemn oaths and slay him. The holiest of saint-preceptors declares that there is no harm in in this.” John Murdoch, Education in India, p. 90.

21. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Cameron, 32:287.

22. “Of Government Education in Bengal,” Calcutta Review, (1845), 3:230. Of course, if one were to pursue Martin Green’s line of thought in Dreams of Adventure, Deeds of Empire, the most obvious rebuttal would be that Milton’s description of Satan deliberately evokes the context of Oriental literature and reinforces the association of Satan with the monstrous and the seductive. The association is further strengthened by the fact that the Milton passage is believed to derive from Sir Thomas Roe’s description of the Mughal emperor Jahangir, to whom he was sent as ambassador (p. 40).

23. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Alexander Duff, 32:412. Partha Mitter, an art historian points out that in nineteenth-century European discussions of Indian art the crucial issue was the uses to which the imagination was put. In terms similar to Duff’s, Ruskin made a distinction between the legitimate use of grotesque motifs in a high form of art like the Christian and in a superstitious artistic tradition like the Hindu. Although he felt that the grotesque in Venetian architecture went against all bounds of reason and natural order, its existence was justified on the grounds that its conception was self-consciously extravagant. When the appeal is purely to the imagination, as Milton’s description of Satan in Hell can claim to be, the reader is in less danger of being misguided or led astray, for “the imagination which is thoroughly under the command of the intelligent will, has a dominion indiscernible by science, and illimitable by law.” Quoted in Partha Mitter, Much Maligned Monsters, p. 242.

24. James Mill, History of British India, p. 49.

25. James Mill, History of British India, p. 47; G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History, J. Sibree, ed. (New York: Dover Books, 1956), p. 162.

26. “Review of Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan,” Quarterly Review (1832), 48:i

27. “Review of Nalodaya by Kalidasa,” Calcutta Review, (1845), 3:12.

28. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” Oriental Herald (1828), 19:102.

29. H. M. Elliott and John Dowson, The History of India as Told by Its Own Historians, p. xx.

30. Horace Wilson, “On the Education of the Natives of India,” Asiatic Journal (1836), p. 14.

31. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Horace Wilson, 32:

32. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Cameron, 32:280.

33. Edward Said draws attention to a similar tendency in modern Orientalism to separate literature from language. Though he has Oriental studies in the West in mind, his contention that the Western idea of the Orient is more readily disseminated when there is no literature to challenge it with its depiction of a “living reality” has obvious resonances in Cameron’s proposal. See Orientalism, p. 291.

34. “Selections from the Records of Government, North West Provinces,” part 20, Calcutta Review (1855), 24:xx.

35. F. W. Farrar, ed., Essays on a Liberal Education, p. 88.

36. Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Extract Minute by Mountstuart Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay, December 13, 1823, 9:515.

37. See J. E. Chamberlin, “An Anatomy of Cultural Melancholy,” pp. 691–705, for an effective discussion of midnineteenth-century perceptions of culture in general as “degenerate.” The critique of culture ranged from attacks on institutional decay to “shoddy habits of language.” According to Chamberlin, the processes of degeneracy were explained by analogies drawn from the sciences, especially biology; the corresponding cure was also described in metaphors of biology, such as grafting.

38. Richard D. Altick, The English Common Reader, p. 183.

39. Cf. Quarterly Review, 107:418: “Much more is it a thing to wonder at and be ashamed of, that, with such a literature as ours, the English lesson is still a desideratum in nearly all our great places of education, and that the future gentry of the country are left to pick up their mother tongue from the periodical works of fiction which are the bane of our youth, and the dread of every conscientious schoolmaster.”

40. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, 9:445.

41. “On the Intellectual Character of the Hindus,” Asiatic Journal (1828), 25:718.

42. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Trevelyan, 32:48.

43. Selections from the Calcutta Gazette, October 24, 1816, p. 148.

44. Asiatic Journal (1826), p. 450.

1. Colin McCabe, “Towards a Modern Trivium,” p. 70.

2. D. J. Palmer, The Rise of English Studies, p. 42.

3. An intriguing discussion of the effect of the colonial encounter on redefinitions of literary forms is provided by Judith Wilt in “The Imperial Mouth,” 618–628. Wilt argues that Western incursions into the unknown in Africa, India, and the Middle East produced a neurosis in the Victorian imagination about how the future would appear. That anxiety is reflected in works like H. G. Wells’ War of the Worlds (1898), Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1897), and Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness (1899), science fiction works that Wilt reads as mutations of Victorian gothic, the colonial encounter being the catalytic agent for such transformation.

4. “Warren Hastings’ letter to Nathaniel Smith, Esq., of the Court of Directors, October 4, 1784,” preface to The Bhagvat Geeta, or Dialogues of Kreeshna and Arjoon, trans. Charles Wilkins (London: C. Nourse, 1784), p. 7.

5. History for Mill was not a recital but a “methodical description of social phenomena and the laws which regulate them.” Elie Halévy writes that “far from using the empirical knowledge which he obtained from the history of British India to determine inductively the necessary movement of progress from the barbarous state to civilization, he rather writes conjectural history and, in most cases, he takes as a point of departure a definition of progress based on the constant facts of human nature and deduces from that what, in fact, the progress of Hindu society must have been.” The Growth of Philosophical Radicalism, Mary Morris, trans. (London: Faber and Faber, 1928; reprint, 1952), p. 274.

6. William Jones, Asiatic Researches, 2:3; quoted by James Mill in History of British India, vol. 2, book 2, p. 111.

7. James Mill, History of British India, p. 37.

8. James Mill, History of British India, p. 39.

9. See Claude Lévi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, translated from the French by Claire Jacobsen and Brooke Grundfest Shoepf (New York: Basic Books, 1963), particularly the essay “The Structural Study of Myth.”

10. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of J. Tucker, 32:349.

11. Quarterly Review (1832), 48:4.

12. J. Talboys Wheeler, The History of India from the Earliest Ages, p. 6.

13. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, 32, Appendix D.

14. Colonel “Hindoo” Stewart, Vindication of the Hindoos, by a Bengal Officer (London, 1808), p. 97, quoted in David Kopf, British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance, p. 141.

15. “Avataras: Four Lectures Delivered at the Theosophical Society, Madras 1899,” in Ainslee T. Embree, ed., The Hindu Tradition (New York: Modern Library, 1965), pp. 322–324.

16. “Drain Inspector’s Report,” in Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Ahmedabad: Navajivan Press, 1969), 34:546.

17. Lionel Gossman, “Literature and Education,” New Literary History (Winter 1982), pp. 344–45. Gossman writes that “underpinning the central place of language and literature in the eighteenth-century college curriculum were certain ideas about the nature of man and of culture. One of these was that, as Herder put it, following Descartes over a century earlier, it is language—the ability to manipulate symbolic systems—that distinguishes man from the beasts (and not science or technology as we might tend to think). To learn to speak and write well was to be humanized. Protestants, especially, valued literacy and—more cautiously—literature as the instrument by which man might enter into the immediate presence of the Word of God in Holy Scripture and thus be freed from narrow, traditional, and—as they saw it—corrupt doctrines and practices…. The acquisition and use of correct literary models of expression was seen by Christians and philosophes alike as a defense against the constant threat of regression into the bestiality of our original condition … [and] the teaching of language and literature as a means of weaning young men from their natural beastliness. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century teachers thus saw in polished language and literature an essential instrument for removing their pupils from natural origins, releasing them from the narrowness of an oral, largely peasant culture, presumed to be shut in on itself and enslaved to routine and superstitition, and for introducing them to the larger view of a universal, human culture, spanning the ages and the nations.”

18. Hugh James Rose, The Tendency of Prevalent Opinions about Knowledge Considered (Cambridge: Deighteon, and London: Rivington, 1826), p. 11, quoted in Alan Bacon, “English Literature Becomes a University Subject,” p. 594.

19. For this insight I am indebted to Franklin Court’s article, “Adam Smith and the Teaching of English Literature,” pp. 325–341.

20. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 214.

21. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, pp. 257–258.

22. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 162.

23. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 164.

24. Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments, p. 165.

25. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” Oriental Herald (October 1828), 19:129.

26. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” p. 127.

27. “Facts Illustrative of the Character and Condition of the People of India,” p. 101.

28. “Philosophy of Fiction,” p. 142.

29. “Philosophy of Fiction,” p. 141. Oriental people were deemed to have “unfurnished, uncultivated, unreflecting, and unobservant minds,” as a result of which their fictional characters were completely without interest.

30. “Philosophy of Fiction,” Asiatic Journal, p. 142. The Asiatic tale on the other hand “lets the mind sit on a couch of luxury and indolence…. [The Asiatic tales of adventure] indicate a sympathy with fate, rather than a sympathy with an energy that defies fate and contends against destiny.”

31. Charles Trevelyan, On the Education of the People of India, p. 192.

32. Charles Trevelyan, On the Education of the People of India, p. 192. Recorded accounts by English-educated Indians confirmed Trevelyan’s assessment, as in the following statement by one recipient of English education, Chander Nath Bose: “English education tells us that we live under tyrannies more numerous and more radically mischievous than those, which produced the great revolution of ’89. It tells us that, here in India, we have a social tyranny, a domestic tyranny, a tyranny of caste, a tyranny of custom, a religious tyranny, a clerical tyranny, a tyranny of thought over thought, of sentiment over sentiment. And it not only tells us of all these tyrannies, but makes us feel them with terrific intensity.” “High Education in India: An Essay Read at the Bethune Society on the 25th April, 1878,” quoted in Bruce McCully, English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism, p. 221.

33. John Murdoch, Education in India, pp. 104–105.

34. John Murdoch, Education in India, p. 17.

35. Education Commission, Report by the Bombay Provincial Committee (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1884), p. 235.

36. John Murdoch, Education in India, p. III. The selection of Hunter’s text is understandable in light of the fact that the Commission that recommended it was headed by Hunter himself.

37. D. J. Palmer, Rise of English Studies, p. 22.

38. Bengal Public Instruction Report for 1856–7, Appendix A, p. 213, quoted in John Murdoch, Education in India, p. 44. There were numerous complaints that subjects like health, thrift, extravagance in marriage and funerals, and the role of women were not taught adequately by professors of English literature, who had “neither knowledge of the people nor sympathy with them.” Consequently selections of readings to communicate informed attitudes to these issues were considered absolutely essential.

39. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix G, Statement of the Progress and Success of the General Assembly (now Free Church) Institution at Calcutta, 32:452–453.

40. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix N, General Report on Public Instruction in the Lower Provinces of the Bengal Presidency for 1843–1844, pp. 491–617.

41. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix N, Scholarship Examination Questions 1843: Literature, 32:573.

42. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix N, Hindoo College Answers, 32:587.

43. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Alexander Duff, 32:47.

44. Calcutta Review (1845), 3:13.

45. “Letter to His Excellency the Right Hon’ble William Pitt, Lord Amherst, II December 1823,” in Selected Works of Raja Rammohun Roy, p. 301.

46. “Baconian Philosophy Applicable to the Mental Regeneration of India,” Calcutta Christian Observer (January-December 1838), 7:124.

47. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Appendix N, Hooghly College Essays, 32:594–595.

48. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Extract from Mahendra Lal Basak’s essay “The Influence of Sound General Knowledge on Hinduism,” 32:450.

49. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of George Norton, 32:105.

1. Monier Monier-Williams, Modern India and the Indians, p. 161.

2. Speech of Mr. George Norton, p. 20.

3. Speech of Mr. George Norton, p. 21.

4. Selections from Educational Records, Vol. I, 1859–1871, p. 168.

5. “Minute by the Hon’ble Mr. Bethune, dated 23rd January 1851,” Selections from Educational Records, vol. I 1840–1859, J. A. Richey, ed. (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1922), p. 29.

6. Thomas B. Macaulay, “Thoughts on the Advancement of Academical Education in England,” Edinburgh Review (1826), 43:334.

7. Joseph Hamburger, Macaulay and the Whig Tradition, p. 17.

8. B. B. Misra, The Indian Middle Classes, p. 174.

9. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, vol. 47. For an effective discussion of the economics of imperialism see Lance E. Davis and Robert A. Huttenback, Mammon and the Pursuit of Empire, in particular chapters 1, 8, and 9.

10. Middle-class Bengalis were often suspicious of the meaning of “practical knowledge” and occasionally interpreted it as a cover for British wiliness. George Campbell, seeking to promote land surveying in Bengal, decided that the Bengali physique first required improvement for the task, to which end he encouraged a regimen of gymnastic exercises. The Murshedabad Patrika, reporting on it, immediately saw a deep-laid, crafty design: “All the pupils at Berhampore College spend the afternoon in wrestling and other gymnastic exercises. They then return to their homes and eat a little, then lie down and sleep like dead people until morning, when they wake up with stiff limbs. The time for reading is wasted in this way. Chota Srijudto (Lieutenant-Governor) is not wanting in artfulness. He has devised many methods to ‘eat the head’ of the higher Bengali learning; though this may not be his design, this is the fruit which will result.” Indian Mirror, May 1, 1873, quoted in John Murdoch, Education in India, p. 108.

11. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47:171.

12. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47:14.

13. Wood’s dispatch confirmed the need for closer ties between education and government service, maintaining that “admission to places of instruction, which are maintained by the State, for the purpose of educating persons for special employments under government, might be made the rewards of industry and ability, and thus a practical encouragement to general education.”

14. Oriental Herald, May 5, 1825, p. 512. Thomas Munro said in 1822: “Besides the necessity for having good native advisers in governing natives, it is necessary that we should pave the way for the introduction of the natives to some share in the government of their own country. It may be half a century before we are obliged to do so; but the system of government and of education which we have already established must some time or other work such a change on the people of this country, that it will be impossible to confine them to subordinate employments.” Quoted in H. R. James, Education and Statesmanship in India 1797–1910, p. 143. Munro attached little value to the education of Indians unless they were given a greater share in the honors and emoluments of office. “Our present system of government by excluding all natives from power and trust and emolument is much more efficacious in depressing them than all our laws and school books can do in elevating their character. We are working against our own designs, and we can expect to make no progress while we work with a feeble instrument to improve and a powerful instrument to deteriorate. The improvement of the character of a people and the keeping them at the same time in the lowest state of dependency on foreign rulers to which they can be reduced by conquest, are matters quite incompatible with each other.”

15. Adam’s Reports of the State of Education in Bengal and Bihar in 1833 and 1838, p. 159.

16. Report of the Indian Education Commission, February 3, 1882, p. 298.

17. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, 9:393. For an analysis of Mill’s writings about India in relation to his political theory, describing the contradictions in Mill’s theoretical and pragmatic positions, see R. J. Moore, “John Stuart Mill at the East India House,” pp. 497–519. Also see Eileen P. Sullivan, “Liberalism and Imperialism”, pp. 599–617 for an extended discussion of Mill’s role in culture and empire building. Mill, argues Sullivan, anticipates the theories of J. A. Hobson decades later in the view that imperialism offered the means by which England would retain its economic world dominance. For other discussions of Mill and empire see also Jeane Clare Blaney, “Savages and Civilization,” and Lynn Zastoupil, “John Stuart Mill and the British Empire.”

18. James Mill, “On Education,” pp. 58–59.

19. James Mill, “On Education,” pp. 61–62.

20. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47:12.

21. “Of Government Education in Bengal,” Calcutta Review (1845), 3:259.

22. “A Sketch of the Origin, Rise, and Progress of Hindoo College,” Calcutta Christian Observer (June-December 1832), 1:118.

23. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Minute of Sir John Malcolm, Governor of Bombay, 1828, 9:526.

24. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, 29:32.

25. “Oppression of Zemindars,” Calcutta Christian Observer (1833), 2:213.

26. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of J. C. Marshman, 32:119.

27. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Minute by M. Elphinstone, December 13, 1823, 9:519.

28. William W. Hunter et al., State Education for the People, p. 8.

29. William W. Hunter et al., State Education for the People, p. 8. The deep despondency that spread among Muslims in the Lower Provinces enchanced the disaffection toward British rule. The government officer in charge of the chief Wahabi prosecution (continuing from 1865 to 1870) came to a conclusion supporting Hunter’s: “I attribute the great hold which Wahabi doctrines have on the mass of the Muhammedan peasantry to our neglect of their education” (p. 8).

30. Educated at Haileybury, Mackenzie was sent out to India in 1808 as a member of the East India Company’s Civil Service. In 1817 he became secretary to the government in the Territorial Department. In 1820 he was a member of the Supreme Council and in 1825 became president of the Council of the College of Fort William. He is best remembered for his work as a settlement officer, particularly for his association with the great Settlement Regulation VII of 1822.

31. Note, dated July 17, 1823, by Holt Mackenzie (Territorial Department, Revenue Consultations, dated July 17, 1823, no. 1), in Henry Sharp, ed., Selections from Educational Records, Part I, 1781–1839 (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, 1920), p. 59.

32. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1854, 47: 12.

33. Report of the Indian Education Commission, p. 471.

34. Report of the Indian Education Commission, p. 222.

35. Report of the Indian Education Commission, p. 220.

36. Fred Clarke in Education and Social Change, p. 25, notes a parallel development in British education; “[The state] will have culture, but it will also have competence and power to discharge a skilled task responsibly. There is strength in such a position, Philistine enough to be a little contemptuous of a pure culture that can do nothing in particular, and cultivated enough to have a healthy distaste for mere efficiency without style or grace of action.”

37. Monier Monier-Williams, Modern India and the Indians, p. 151. Monier Williams pointed out the vast gap in perceptions of British rule by the educated elite and the masses. “I have found all intelligent Natives generally satisfied with our rule. It is useless, however, to conceal from ourselves the existence of much discontent, chiefly among the men who have been educated above their stations” (p. 361).

38. Henry Sumner Maine, Village Communities of the East and West, p. 276.

39. Henry Sumner Maine, Village Communities of the East and West, p. 270. Similar complaints were made elsewhere in Indian newspapers. One article in the Indian Mirror, dated September 3, 1873, observed that rationalism had one meaning in England and other “civilized” countries and a totally different one in countries that had not reached the same level of intellectual development. “In India it denotes both intellectual infidelity and moral degradation…. It is not difficult to understand how in a state of society governed by a healthy public opinion and surrounded by a moral atmosphere surcharged with Christian influences men may apostasize intellectually without ruining their character. Though they do not acknowledge any moral or religious control and even audaciously and scoffingly ignore everything sacred, they are compelled to bow before the tribunal of human society, and submit to its decrees and injunctions which are all evidently based upon religion. Western civilization has been in a large measure moulded by Christianity; its discipline must therefore, be of an essentially moral character…. Such is not the case in our country [India]. Those who renounce Hinduism and become unbelievers wildly run away beyond the reach of all moral discipline and fall into unbridled vicious indulgence. We have hardly anything like educated public opinion outside the pale of Hindu society. Heterodoxy has no code of morals, no system of discipline…. Where there is no fear of social or religious discipline, the heart naturally runs into vicious excesses. Our unbelieving countrymen defy both God and their parents and also the opinion of their neighbours, and think that their infidelity is a sufficient plea for all their immoralities.”

40. Henry Sumner Maine, Village Communities of the East and West, p. 290.

41. D. J. Palmer, The Rise of English Studies, p. 15.

42. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of Captain T. Macan, 9:160.

43. Speech of Mr. George Norton, p. 10.

44. John Murdoch, Letter to the Right Hon’ble Baron Napier, p. 108.

45. Monier Monier-Williams, Modern India and the Indians, p. 154.

46. “Educational Conference, Simla,” in Lord Curzon in India: Being a Selection from His Speeches as Viceroy and Governor-General of India 1898–1905, Sir Thomas Raleigh, ed. (London: Macmillan, 1906), p. 352.

47. “Vernacular Education for Bengal,” Calcutta Review, (1854), 22:300.

48. Athenaeum (1835), p. 351.

49. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Evidence of Charles Lushington, March 3, 1832, 29:111.

50. “Third Report of the Students’ Literary and Scientific Society, Bombay 1852,” Calcutta Review (1852), 18:vii.

51. One of the best known societies, the Bethune Society, was created in order to excite a “greater desire for intellectual pursuits among hitherto apathetic natives, of carrying on that education which an itching for speedily earning rupees causes to be so stinted at the public schools or colleges, and of giving ideas of literary excellence, mental power, and even national duties beyond what had hitherto existed.” “Selections from the Bethune Society’s Papers,” Calcutta Review, (1855), 24:1.

52. “Selections from the Bethune Society’s Papers,” p. 11.

53. “Selections from the Bethune Society’s Papers,” p. 111.

54. “Baconian Philosophy Applicable to the Mental Regeneration of India,” Calcutta Christian Observer, p. 125.

55. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Minute of Francis Warden, 9:522.

56. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1852–53, Evidence of Charles Trevelyan, 32:156.

57. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Report of A. D. Campbell, 1823, 9:503.

58. Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, 1831–32, Minute by Mountstuart Elphinstone, December 13, 1823, 9:518.

59. Bureau of Education, India, Selections from Educational Records, Part 2, Minute of Colonel Jervis, February 24, 1847, p. 13.

60. David Lelyveld, Aligarh’s First Generation, p.84.

61. Calcutta University Commission 1917–19: Evidence and Documents (Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India, 1919), p. 392.

62. Calcutta Gazette, August 22, 1816. Many of the books sold in public auctions originally belonged to East India Company officials, who brought them to India as part of their cultural baggage. When they left India, they either auctioned them off or donated them to libraries. The pages of the Calcutta Gazette are full of their advertisements and are a good source for studying the development of reading interests in India.