Sir William Jones (1748-1794): The "Good" Orientalist?, Part II

Articles in this Topic Discussions in this Topic

May 7, 1999

Jones as Protagonist

If there can only be one "good" Orientalist, which is itself a debatable question, Orientalism scholar Garland Cannon asserts that it must be Jones. Far from being an agent of imperialism, or an imperialist attempting to establish and then perpetuate political and cultural hegemony, Cannon asserts that Jones was often an opponent of the colonial project, particularly some of its more egregious aspects. [1] While Cannon concedes that Jones saw the need for British rule for at least the short-term, he argues quite strenuously that none of Jones' activities suggested "that his research was ever motivated by a desire to keep India a colony, or that he was an ideological agent of Western imperialism seeking to exploit native peoples and their resources." [2] Rather, instead of controlling India for its own sake, Jones saw it as his duty, along with his counterparts, to prepare India for independence by helping Indians revive their once great culture. Once this culture was revived, so Jones believed, ancient Indian governing institutions would again be in place, or Indians would create new ones based on their cultural and historical traditions, and thus, the need for the British would become non-existent. [3]

With this purpose in mind, Cannon argues, Jones and other Orientalists started the Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784. This benevolence, however, toward the Indians did not stop with this establishment. Believing that it was "...absurd and intellectually indefensible...." to exclude the Indian pandits and maulvis [religious scholars] who assisted Jones and the other Orientalists, Jones sought, albeit unsuccessfully, to give them full membership in the Society. [4] Nevertheless, by Jones endearing himself to these native scholars, they shared their culture fully with him and thus greatly enabled his work in Sanskrit.

In addition, Cannon notes that this mutual esteem and respect was apparent in Jones' work on the Hindu religion. Whereas many other Orientalists found it difficult if not impossible to accept it and especially its polytheism, Jones just accepted it as "... one of the major theologies of the world [that] deserve to be made known to and respected by the West...." [5] It was not considered superior or inferior to Western theology, just different.

In closing, Cannon sees Jones as being India's "protector" at a time of increasing cultural and political exploitation. Bucking the prevalent trend to view Indian culture, religion, and history as inferior, Jones helped to diminish the overwhelming prejudice against the Orient and India that had existed previously, and was to exist afterwards, in academic circles. Furthermore, instead of reconstructing India's past in order to colonize it, Jones was interested in "... giving pride and general unity back to a subcontinent..." that had lost what it one had. [6] In short, Cannon believes that Jones was the greatest humanitarian scholar of late eighteenth century India, whose efforts greatly benefited Indians.

Go To Page: 1 2 3

The copyright of the article Sir William Jones (1748-1794): The "Good" Orientalist?, Part II in Modern British History is owned by Joseph Sramek. Permission to republish Sir William Jones (1748-1794): The "Good" Orientalist?, Part II in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.