63 Boehme (1909), p.225.
64 Böhme (1924), pp.150–1; Böhme (1640), p.107, (21.16–17); cf. Tryon (1691b), p.130. Cf. Spencer (1993), pp.237–8, 253.
65 Crab (1657), pp.20–2; Böhme (1654, 1924), pp.31–3; Gibbons (1996), pp.114–15; cf. e.g. Tryon (1705a) [128, [2]pp.; 12o; CUL VIII.32.70], pp.23–4; Thune (1948), p.119. Compare also Crab (1657), pp.14, 18 with Böhme (1654, 1924), ch.27, v.46, pp.231–2.
66 Strype (1720), II, Appendix 1, p.99.
67 Hessayon, ‘Roger Crab’, ODNB.
CHAPTER 4
1 Della Valle (1892), p.99; Gaudenzio (1641), p.41; Mitter (1977), pp.28–31, 49ff.; Tavernier (1995), II.142; Fryer (1909), II.100; Blount (1680?), pp.14–15; Temple (1690), pp.17–18.
2 cf. e.g. Terry (1655), p.A7v; Locke (1858), pp.251–3.
3 The debate about Orientalist constructions of the Indian ‘Other’ has deepened the understanding of how the European acquisition of knowledge about India was motivated by a desire to acquire, and was in itself an expression of exerting, power over India (Said (1978), pp.21, 37 and passim and e.g. Teltscher (1995)). But we have lost sight of the genuine influence which Indian culture had on Europe. Recent academic work has returned to the question of ‘genuine influence’ and has begun to erode the megalithic assumption that travellers only projected onto the Orient those prejudices they carried with them, e.g. Rubiés (2000), pp.x–xiv+n., 367n., and passim; Mitter (1977), p.51; Popkin (1990a), pp.33–5; cf. Hazard (1953), pp.8–12; Sarasohn (1996), p.178; Reinders (2004). Drew (1998) tackles this issue from a different angle.
Europeans encountered Jains and Buddhists, but there was little understanding about their status, and so the different traditions were often conflated under the umbrella terms ‘Gentoo’, ‘Hindoo’, ‘Banian’. ‘Hinduism’ itself can be argued to be a category of Western invention, misleadingly projecting onto the heterogeneous Indian religious traditions a homogeneity equivalent to that of Christianity. However, since the development of European thought is the object of examination, it is pertinent to refer to categories which they conceptualised. Thus they were interested in ‘Hinduism’ even if Hinduism can be said not to exist. Although suggestions can be made about exactly which groups were encountered by particular individuals, the conclusions are often doubtful since the travelogues were partly (and sometimes entirely) composed of invention, exaggeration, misapprehension, projection and plagiarism. Recent scholars have pointed out that Vaisnavism and Jainism are intermixed in western India, that many Banians in western India are Jain, and that most Jain merchants still call themselves Hindus. However, such comments have often relied upon the speculative work of nineteenth-century scholars who sometimes assumed that Indian culture had remained static for two millennia and that nineteenth-century practices provided a perfect picture of conditions in previous centuries. cf. Lach and Kley (1993), p.645n. who cite Yule and Burnell, Hobson Jobson (n.18), pp.63–4; Prasad (1968), pp.324–25, n.7 who in turn repeats the comments of Monier Williams, Modern India, 2nd edn, p.74. See also Linschoten (1988), I.252–5n.; Goyal (2000), pp.117–18, 122, 131. Stoneman (1994), p.507; Stoneman (1995), p.108. On this confusion, see e.g. Rubiés (2000), p.29.
4 Pyrrho appears to have absorbed Indian thought on a visit there, and even Socrates was said to have met Indian philosophers sojourning in Athens. Democritus and Lycurgus were said to have derived part of their philosophy from India. Herodotus (484–c.435 BC) had written of Indians who ‘refuse to put any live animal to death … Vegetables are their only food.’ Ctesias the Cnidian (b. c.416 BC), the Greek physician, picked up enough while staying in Persia to write a book about India full of stories of the justice-loving Indians living disease-free lives of up to 200 years, feeding exclusively on sweet roots and milk (Herodotus (1862), III.100; Kämper (1995), pp.159–60; Stoneman (1995), pp.99–100, 103–4; Stoneman (1994), p.507; Ferguson (1975), pp.47, 64; cp. Sedlar (1980)).
5 Majumdar, ed. (1960), p.278. This and other such observations show that Europeans were aware of the problems of interpreting alien cultures; see e.g. Della Valle (1892), pp.76–7.
6 cf. Palladius et al. (1665), sig.c2r.
7 On karmic rebirth in Hinduism, and its similarity to Pythagorean ‘ethicized’ metempsychosis, see e.g. O’Flaherty, ed. (1980), pp.14, 21; Obeyesekere (1980), pp.137–8, 151; Spencer (1993), p.77. On those doctrines in Indian and Greek religion respectively, see Tull (1989), p.31ff. Kirk and Raven (1960), pp.222–3; Guthrie (1962), pp.194–5; Heninger (1974), pp.267+n.; Kämper (1995), p.160; Ovid, Metamorphoses, XV.
8 Kämper (1995), pp.159–85; Ammianus (1935), II.366–9 (xxiii. 6, 32–33). Most previous commentators have focused on the claim that Pythagoras took his philosophy from Egypt, though Egypt was often seen only as an intermediary between Pythagoras and India, cf. Kirk and Raven (1960), p.224; Guthrie (1962), p.160; Heninger (1974), pp.268–9.
9 Apuleius (1853), pp.377–8, 388–9; cf. pp.272, 278–9; Walbridge (2001), pp.5–8; Stoneman (1994), p.507.
10 Guthrie (1962), pp.186–195; Celenza (1999); Burkert (1972), pp.180–1; Mitter (1977), p.49ff.
11 On the Egyptian origin of Greek Philosophy, see Bernal (1987), pp.70–2, 105–6, 110, 117–20, 135–6, 230 and passim. On Indian primacy see the excellent collection of ancient and early modern references in Kämper (1995), pp.146 (Egyptian origin of Greek culture); 148, 159 (Pythagoras’ travels); 149–50 (Brahmins); 151 (Pythagoras learning from the Brahmins); 152 (Egypt was a colony that came from India, citing Homer, Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemaios, Herodotus (an erroneous citation, cf. VII.70), Arrian, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Philostratus, and from the seventeenth century P.D. Huet, C. Helvicus, J. Ludolph; see also Manetho (1940), Appendix IV, 159–61, 171–2; Lucian (1905), IV.97–8; Creech (1699), sig.Ar; Lloyd (1699), p.vi. cp. Diodorus Siculus (1604), Bk III, p.144.
12 Anti-sacrifice was a Pythagorean position; there are conflicting stories, however, that Pythagoras offered a sacrifice of oxen when he worked out his famous theorem about the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle. Diogenes Laertius (2000), II.331–2; Burkert (1972), pp.180–1; cf. Athenaeus of Naucratis, Deipnosophistae, Bk. 1; Reuchlin (1983), pp.173–9; Lord (1630), pp.47–9; Guthrie (1962), pp.188–91. For a review of the parallels between Buddhist and Christian sacrifice-reforms, see Derrett (2000).
13 Philostratus (1912), I.3, 5, 257–69, 291, 307; II.39–51, 303–7, 315, 339, 537–41; Drew (1998), pp.85–90; Stoneman (1994), p.504; Stoneman (1995), p.108–9; Mitter (1977), p.49ff.
14 Sedlar (1980), pp.199–207; Stoneman (1994), pp.503–4; Schwab (1984), p.3.
15 St Irenaeus (1868), Bk I, ch.25, sect.4, pp.95–6; Mead (1931), pp.23, 26, 77, 274, 7, 37, 205, 231–2, 339; Spencer (1993), pp.55, 113, 117, 130–42.
16 cf. Manu (1971), v.56; Porphyry (2000), pp.113–15+nn. Clark notes the accuracy of Porphyry’s description of the Brahmins, but not his description of the ‘renouncers’, which does not come from Strabo and therefore attests the verity of Bardesanes’ claims of a real encounter. Rajumdar (1960), pp.425–31; Stoneman (1995), p.109; Drew (1998), pp.80–1.
17 Rajumdar (1960), pp.439–40; McCrindle (1960), pp.103–4; Clement of Alexandria (2004a), Bk I, ch.15; cf. Bk II, ch.18; Bk III, ch.7; Bk VII, ch.1; Clement of Alexandria (2004b), Bk 2, ch.1 ‘On eating’.
18 Hippolytus (2005), Bk I, ch.21, pp.59–60; Bk VII, ch.16; Bk VIII, ch.13, pp.326–7; Rajumdar (1960), p.443; Stoneman (1994), pp.503–4; Genesis 3:19.
19 Rajumdar (1960), pp.431–4; cf. Herodotus (1862), III.106.
20 cf. Drew (1998), pp.164–6; Prest (1981), pp.27–37; Grove (1995), pp.96–100, 153; Rubiés (2000), pp.36, 147–9.
21 Rajumdar (1960), p.446; cf. Boas (1948), pp.140n., 150; cf. Voltaire (1779–80), I.43–4.
22 Bardesanes (2004), p.730; Eusebius (1903), Bk VI, Ch. 10, Vol.III, pp.295–300 (col.273a–278a); p.442 (col.410d); pp.502–3 (col.471a); (cf. Porphyry (2000), p.113n.). Exactly the same passage from Bardesanes was used by the influential text which Eusebius had also read: Pseud
o-Clement (2005a), Bk IX, ch.20; cf. chs. 25, 27; and used again in Pseudo-Origen, repr. in Rajumdar (1960), p.443.
23 Jerome (2005a), Bk II, chs.13–15; Rajumdar (1960), p.440; Derrett (1960), p.67; Origen (2005), p.36.
24 Stoneman (1994), p.503; cf. Hahn, ed. (1981), f.97r; Tryon (1696), p.125.
25 Stoneman (1991), pp.131–3, 178–9; Stoneman (1995), pp.99, 113–4; Stoneman (1994). For discussions on the history of ‘the virtuous Brahmin’, see Boas (1948), pp.137–51 and Mitter (1977), p.49ff.
26 Rubiés (2000), p.82.
27 Polo (1972), pp.261, 267, 271, 277–80; cf. pp.255–6, 265; Polo recognised that India was not entirely vegetarian, p.272; Rubiés (2000), pp.54–72.
28 Polo (1972), p.281ff; cf. Linschoten (1988), I.78–9; Lockman, ed. (1743), I.383n.
29 Drew (1998), pp.164–6; Grove (1995), pp.96–100, 153; Rubiés (2000), pp.36, 147–9.
30 Yule, ed. (1915), III.220, 226–60; cf. II.171; cf. Rubiés (2000), pp.65, 74n.
31 On Bacchus in India, see Rajumdar (1960), pp.195, 273–82; Goyal (2000), pp.117–32; McCrindle (1960), pp.68, 227; Goyal (1985), p.105; Stoneman (1995), pp.103–9; cf. Rubiés (2000), pp.83–4, 98; Lach and Kley (1993), p.648.
32 Rubiés (2000), pp.83–4, 106–21.
33 Boemus (1885–90), Vol.VI, Bk. ii, ch.8; Rubiés (2000), pp.126+n.; Mitter (1977), p.48. Compare Boemus with Boas (1948), pp.148–9.
34 Mandeville (1900), ch. 32.
35 Rubiés (2000), p.146; Lakowski (1999), pp.13–14, 17, 19; Yates (1961), p.233; Derrett (1960), p.67.
36 Spink (1960), p.50; McGuire and Rattansi (1966), p.129.
37 Campanella (1901); cf. Polo (1972), pp.279–80.
38 Swift (1726), Pt. IV, Ch.2.
39 Mitter (1977), pp.27–8; Drew (1998), p.47; Rubiés (2000), pp.7–9, 83–4, 155–62; Županov (1999), pp.35–7.
40 Mitter (1977); da Vinci (1970), II.103–4n.; da Vinci (1956), p.382; Nicholl (2004), p.43; Annand (1927), p.414.
41 da Vinci (1956), p.246; da Vinci (1970), II.103–6+n., 179, 216, 298–9, 315, 341–2+n., 369; cf. II.94, 221, 242+n., 245, 258, 289, 292–308; Kemp (1981), pp.44, 52, 159, 177, 343–4; Franzero (1969), pp.107–8 (treat with caution); da Vinci (1987), pp.20–3, 26 (extremely dubious authenticity); Spencer (1993), pp.190–2, who is incorrect to suggest that the issue was only mentioned by one of sixty biographies in the London Library. Blount (1680), pp.2–3. Cf. Ovid (1632), Bk XV and Sandys’ commentary; Gaitonde (1983), pp.36–7.
42 Anon. (1898), pp.45, 58, 132; cf. 49–59, 57, 138–9; Purchas, ed. (1905–7), II.71; Rubiés (2000), pp.161, 165–70, 267+n.; Burde (1963). cf. Lord (1630), p.41.
43 For a polemic discussion of non-vegetarian traditions in ancient Indian texts, see e.g. Jha (2002) (published and pulped in New Delhi as Holy Cow: Beef-eating in Indian Dietary Traditions, 2001).
44 Findly (1934).
45 Zimmerman (1987), pp.182–92.
46 Manu (1971), v.29.
47 Manu (1971), v.46.
48 Linschoten (1988), I.297–9; Roe (1990), pp.274–5; Tavernier (1995), p.158; Foster (1999), p.14.
49 Mitter (1977), pp.1–55. Though cf. the humanist interpretations of Della Valle (1892), pp.73–4. Della Valle echoes Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris and Porphyry, cf. Bernal (1987), pp.117–19; Rubiés (2000), pp.357–8; Ovington (1929), pp.168–70; Manuel (1963), pp.107–8.
50 Lach (1971), I.i.439–40; Foster (1999), pp.14, 22–3; Roe (1990), p.275; Bernier (1988), pp.326–7; Fryer (1909), I.138; Picart (1733–7), VI.ii.162–3; Lockman, ed. (1743), I.361n.; Mitter (1977), pp.22, 50, 62; Radicati (1737), pp.41; Herbert (1634), p.39; Anon. (1898), pp.45, 132; Rubiés (2000), p.167; [Créquinière] (1705), p.55; Terry (1655), pp.327, 352.
51 Glanius (1682), pp.168–70; cf. Rubiés (2000), p.371+n.; Kircher (1987), p.137; Yates (1961), p.68; Diodorus Siculus (1700), p.43; Picart (1733–7), VI.ii.162–3.
52 Yule, ed. (1915), II.137–8; Rubiés (2000), pp.75–6; Mitter (1977), p.50; Polo (1972), pp.279–80.
53 Lach (1971), I.i.439–40; Foster (1999), p.14; Linschoten (1988), I.257–8; Lord (1630), pp.60–1; Tavernier (1995), pp.164, 169, 199; Manucci (1965), I.151–3; Ovington (1929), p.186; Picart (1733–7), IV.ii.15; Manucci (1965), I.151–3, III.39–42.
54 Polo (1972), pp.265, 276, 279; Rubiés (2000), p.60; Mitter (1977), p.50; cf. Linschoten (1988), I.257–8, 300–1; Della Valle (1892), pp.68–71, 86–7+n.; Ovington (1929), pp.168–70; cf. pp.138, 177+n., 219.
55 Bernier (1988), pp.326–7; Fryer (1909), I.94.
56 Aquinas (1975), pp.157–8; cf. Diodorus Siculus (1700), pp.44–5; Maimonides (1963), p.581 (III.xlvi); Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–94.
57 See ch. 19 below; cf. Jerome (2005a), Bk II. ch.7; Browne (1672), Bk III, ch.xxv, pp.189–194+nn.; Maimonides (1963), p.581 (Pt III, ch.46).
58 Mitter (1977), p.49; Gaitonde (1983), pp.31–3; Linschoten (1988), I.253–4; Ovington (1929), p.176; Kincaid (1973), p.13; Terry (1655), pp.326–7.
59 Gaitonde (1983), pp.31–3, 36–7; Lach (1971), pp.360, 399–401; cf. Polo (1972), pp.277, 280; Linschoten (1988), I.253–4; Roe (1990), pp.92, 270–1; Mitter (1977), p.49ff; Manucci (1965), I.151–3, 379+n.; Fryer (1909), I.231, 211–12+n.; Ovington (1929), p.175; Picart (1733–7), IV.ii.15; Teltscher (2000), p.161; Purchas (1905–7), IV.443, IX.46; Herbert (1634), p.38. On apparently Jain concern for microscopic organisms, cf. Ovington (1929), pp.195–6; the preposition in Ovington’s statement seems to have been misunderstood in [Créquinière] (1705), p.55; cf. Lach (1971), I.459–60; Lord (1630), pp.74–6; Lach and Kley (1993), p.649; Fryer (1909), II.107–8+n. Missionaries debunked vegetarianism by using microscopes to show Indians that they ‘committed many murders’ every time they drank water: Teltscher (1995), p.95 (see ch. 20 and 25 below); O’Flaherty, ed. (1980), pp.223–5; Walli (1974), pp.56–7.
60 Linschoten (1988), I.251–6+n.; cf. I.205–7, 246, 248; Gaudenzio (1641), pp.39–42; Della Valle (1892), pp.68–71.
61 Ovington (1929), pp.177–8; Roe (1990), p.105; Manucci (1965), I.151–3; Fryer (1909), I.138, 257, 350, II.25; cf. I.196, II.73.
62 Anon. (1687), pp.55, 63.
63 cf. e.g. Lord (1630), pp.74–6; Della Valle (1892), pp.68–71; Manucci (1965), I.151–3; Kircher (1987), p.143; [Créquinière] (1705), p.55; Hasan (1733), Notes, Part 2, p.35.
64 Foster (1999), p.25; cf. pp.14–19, 28; cf. Linschoten (1988), I.253–4+n..
65 Ovid (1632), Bk XV; Ovington (1929), pp.177–8; cf. Spy, V.87–90; Tryon (1691a), pp.371–2.
66 Tertullian (2004a), ch.48; Lord (1630), p.52; Linschoten (1999), p.212; Teltscher (2000), pp.161–5. Mughals had noticed the similarity too: Alberuni (1888), I.68–88; Abul Fazl (1783–86), III.96; Drew (1998), pp.53–4.
67 Tyson & Wallis (1721), p.4.
68 Fryer (1909), I.94, 108, II.79, 100–2, 167; cf. I.118.
69 Purchas, ed. (1905–7), I.205, 217–43, III.69; V.200; IX.45ff, 89; Roe (1990), pp.270–1, 105; cf. Gaitonde (1983), p.39; Linschoten (1988), I.251–2+n.; Bondt (1769), pp.156–7.
70 These claims may have arisen due to the traditional medieval Islamic claim that Hinduism had been established in India by Pythagoras, a story that would have been well known in Mughal India. The sixth/ twelfth-century theologian Shahrastāanī – exceptional in his openness to Hinduism – claimed that a student of Pythagoras called Calanus (Qalānus) travelled to India and divulged Pythagoreanism to ‘Barākhmīn’ who then became ‘the leader of all the Indians and urged men to purify their bodies and rectify their souls’. The historical Calanus, whose legend was recorded in numerous ancient and early modern texts, was in fact an Indian ‘gymnosophist’ who returned from India with Alexander as far as Persia before burning himself on a funeral pyre; cf. Walbridge (2001), pp.70–2; Lawrence (1976).
71 Della Valle (1892), pp.75–7; cf. Bayle, P. (1734–41), VIII.618; Mitter (1977), pp.28–31, 49; Rubiés (2000), pp. 354–8, 363, 370–2+n., 382. Della Valle stated that Philostratus claimed that Pythagoras taught metempsychosi
s to the Indians, whereas the Greek text of Philostratus says the opposite (as far as can be ascertained): that the Indians taught it to Pythagoras. This crucial priority reversal is repeated by Athanasius Kircher and Father Bouchet. I am extremely grateful to Joan-Pau Rubiés for pointing out to me what he does not explain in Rubiés (2000), that the origin of this ‘error’ lies in the standard Latin translation of the problematic Greek manuscript of Philostratus edited at the turn of the sixteenth century, and two separate Italian translations of 1549, all of which declared that Pythagoras taught the doctrine to us (the Indians), rather than to you (the Greeks). Whether these editors mistranslated that one Greek word wholly inadvertently, or whether they did so wilfully because they did not think it possible or desirable that the Indians taught Pythagoras, their decision epitomised a priority dispute with far-reaching significance which raged for centuries, and in a different framework is still openly debated today. In 1532 a humanist critic noted the manuscript variant in a footnote, but without corrrecting the translation. Rubiés’ statement that Philostratus had ‘completely reversed’ the usual derivation ‘by giving primacy to India’, however, does not seem to take account of the Neoplatonic tradition represented by Apuleius (see above). Philostratus (1912), I.269, II.303–5, 339; Kircher (1987), p.138; Picart (1733–7), IV.ii.159–67. cp. e.g. Gueullette (1725), pp.xv–xvi; Lloyd (1699), p.vi.
72 Lord (1630), Title Page, Dedication, Introduction, pp.4, 31–5, 43–53, 59, 71, 76ff, 83–94; Rubiés (2000), p.7; Tertullian (2004a), ch. 48; Teltscher (2000), p.161; Teltscher (1995), pp.23–4, 92, 98; Polo (1972), pp. 277, 280; Rhodiginus (1542), pp.496–9, 715–16; cf. [Créquinière] (1705), p.55. cf. also Mitter (1977), pp.50, 53n., 243; Lach (1971), pp. 439–40; Lach and Kley (1993), pp.644–9; Schwab (1984), pp.135–8; Anon. (1687), pp.11–12.
73 Mitter (1977), pp.51–4; Rubiés (2000), pp.309, 312; Rogerius (1651); Rogerius (1670); another French edition, 2 vols (J. Schipper, Amsterdam, 1761); Rogerius (1663); another German edition (1683); Sweetman (2001), p.209; Picart (1733–7), III; Schwab (1984), pp.138–41, 145, 151–2; Rubiés (2000), pp.345–6.
The Bloodless Revolution Page 72
