Abstract
The formation of Orientalism as an area of European academic inquiry was grounded on a “genesis amnesia”1 that systematically obliterated the dialogic conditions of its emergence and the production of its linguistic and textual tools. By turning “the Orient” into an object of analysis and gaze, Orientalism as a European institution of learning anathematized the Asian pedagogues of its practitioners. Embedded in an active process of forgetting, histories of Orientalism have attributed to the “pioneers” of the field the heroic tasks of entering “this virgin territory,” breaking into “the walled languages of Asia,” unlocking “innumerable unsuspected scriptures,” and making “many linguistic discoveries.”2 This modulated account of the history of Orientalism appropriates as its own the agency, authorality, and creativity of its Other. As a hegemonic and totalizing discourse, Orientalism celebrates its own perspectival account as scientific and objective while forgetting the histories and perspectives informing its origins.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
On “genesis amnesia” see Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice, trans. Richard Nice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 79.
Raymond Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Discovery of India and the East, 1680–1880, trans. Gene Pattersan-Black and Victor Reinking (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984), 8, 7, 5, and 33.
Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York: W. W. Norton, 1982), 142, 168, and 170. In Lewis’s account, “[i]t is not until the 1820s that for the first time we find in Egypt translations of Western books … “(170).
Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 123–4.
G. E. Von Grunebaum, Modem Islam: The Search for Cultural Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962), 233–4 and 234–5.
Edward Said, Orientalism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), respectively 204, 160, 50, 204.
Max Muller, “Preface to the Sacred Books of the East,” in The Upanishads, trans. F. Max Muller (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879; Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), xvii.
For an erudite account of Anquetil-Duperron’s residence in India see Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, “Anquetil Du Perron of Paris-India as Seen by Him (175560),” in Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab (Bombay: Times of India, 1916), 1–69.
In conventional accounts of this relationship Anquetil is often lionized while his educators are demeaned. For instance see Martin Haug, The Parsis: Essays on Their Sacred Language, Writings and Religion, rev. K. W. West (Boston, Mass.: Houghton, Osgood, 1878; New Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 1978), 17–18. For a critical analysis of Anquetil-Duperron’s exaggerations and self-glorification see Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, “Anquetil Du Perron of Paris and Dastur Drab of Surat,” in Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab, 70–141.
Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance, 7.
According to Schwab, “An Oriental Renaissance — a second Renaissance, in contrast to the first: the expression and the theme are familiar to the Romantic writers, for whom the term is interchangeable with Indic Renaissance. What the expression refers to is the revival of an atmosphere in the nineteenth century brought about by the arrival of Sanskrit texts in Europe, which produced an effect equal to that produced in the fifteenth century by the arrival of Greek manuscripts and Byzantine commentators after the fall of Constantinople.” See Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance, 11.
Abu al-Fazl Allami, The A-in-i Akbari, trans. H. Blochman; edited by D. C. Phillott (Calcutta :[Royal] Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1872–7; Delhi: Low Price Publications, 1989), 1: 110–12.
For Persian translation of Sanskrit works see Fathullah Mujtabai, “Persian Hindu Writings: Their Scope and Relevance,” in Aspects of Hindu Muslim Cultural Relations (New Delhi: National Book Bureau, 1978); Shriram Sharm, A Descriptive Bibliography of Sanskrit Works in Persian (Hyderabad: Abul Kalam Azad Oriental Research Institute, 1982); N. S. Shukla, “Persian Translations of Sanskrit Works,” Indological Studies, 3 (1974), 175–91.
Cited in Mujtabai, Aspects ofHindu Muslim Cultural Relations, 66.
Quoted from a statement by Emperor Akbar appearing in Mir Jamal al-Din Husayn Inju Shirazi, Farhang-i Jahangiri, ed. Rahim ‘Afifi (Mashhad: Danishgah-i Mashhad, 1354/1975), 4. The full text of Akbar’s statement appears in J. J. Modi, “Notes on Anquetile Du Perron (1755–61) on King Akbar and Dastur Meherji Rana” in Contributions onAkbar and theParsees, ed. B. P. Ambashthya (Patna: Janaki Prakashan, 1976), 1–16, particularly 6.
V. S. Ghate, “Persian Grammar in Sanskrit,” The Indian Antiquary Uanuary 1912), 4–7.
Mirza Khan ibn Fakhr al-Din Muhammad, Tuhfat al-Hind, ed. Nur al-Hasan Ansari (Tehran: Bunyad-i Farhang-i Iran, 1975).
Dastur Ardshir Nawshirvan was invited on the recommendation of the Zoroastrian Dastur Meherji Rana. On this point see J. J. Modi, “The Parsees at the Court of Akbar and Dastur Ivleherji Rana,” in Contributions on Akbar and the Parsees, 1–177, particularly 17; Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 183. For a list of “Zand and Pazand” terminologies compiled in cooperation with Ardshir Nawshirvan see Inju Shirazi, Farhang-i/ahangiri, 3: 553–700.
On “Eighteenth-Century Parsi Religious Disputes” see Boyce, Zoroastrians, 188–95.
Zend-Avesta, trans. A. H. Anquetil-Duperron and intro. Robert D. Richardson (New York: Garland, 1984), 1: 326; Boyce, Zoroastrians, 189; Haug, The Parsis, 57; Modi, Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab, 37.
On the eve of Anquetil’s departure for Europe, Dasturs Darab and Kavus sued him for the failure to pay the price for purchased manuscripts and tutorial charges. For details see Modi, Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab, 55 and 95.
For the Persian translation see Muhammad Dara Shukuh bin Shahjahan, Sirr-i Akbar = Sirr al-Asrar, ed. Tara Chand and Muhammad Riza Jalali Na’ini (Tehran: Taban, 1961). For a description of this translation see Mahesh Prasad, “The Unpublished Translation of the Upanishads by Prince Data Shikoh,” in Dr. Modi Memorial Volume: Papers on Indo-Iranian and other Subjects, ed. Darab Peshotan Sanjana, Bamanji Nasarwanji et. al. (Bombay: Fort Printing Press, 1930), 622–38.
Halhed’s translation remains unpublished. On his contribution see Rosane Rocher, Orientalism, Poetry, and the Millenium: The Checkered Life of Nathaniel Brassey Halhed, 1751–1830 (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983); Wilhelm Halbfass, India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding (New York: State University of New York Press, 1988), 64.
Oupenek’hat: id est, Secretum tegendum, trans. A. H. Anquetil-Duperron (Strasbourg, 1801).
Schwab, The Oriental Renaissance, 143 and 142.
Francois Bernier, Travels in the Moghul Empire, AD 1656–1668, trans. Archibard Constable, rev. Vincent Smith (London: Oxford University Press, 1914; New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 1989), 323–4.
From the publisher’s “Note” appearing in the reprint edition of Jones’s A Grammar of the Persian Language (London: W. and J. Richardson, 1771; Menston: Scholar Press, 1969), v.
The Letters of Sir William Jones, ed. Garland Cannon (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1970), 2: 798.
In a letter to William Steuart dated 13 September 1789, Jones wrote: “Give my best compliments to Major Palmer & tell him that his friend Tafazzul Husain Khan is doing wonders in English & Mathematicks. He is reading Newton with Borrow, & means to translate the Principia into Arabick.” See “To William Steuart/’ in Letters of Sir William Jones, no. 520, 838–40. On Tafazzul Husayn Khan see Shushtari, Tuhfat al=Alam, 363–67; Rahman ‘Ali, Tazkarah-’i ‘Ulama-yi Hind (Luknow: Matba’-i Munshi Niwal Kishur, 1894), 36–7.
See William Jones, “The Sixth Discourse: On the Persians, Delivered 19 February 1789,” in The Works of Sir William Jones in Six Volumes, ed. Anna Maria Shipley Jones (London: G. G. and J. Robinson, 1799), 73–94, name on 77–78; idem, “A Conversation with Abram, an Abyssinian concerning the City of Gwender and the Source of the Nile,” in Works, 1: 515–518, name on 517.
For Bahman’s cooperation with Jones see Jones, “On the Persians,” 80, 81, 82, 84, 89. In a letter to Sir John Macpherson dated 6 May 1786, Jones wrote, “I read with pleasure, while at breakfast, Mr. Forster’s lively little tract, and having finished my daily task of Persian reading with a learned Parsi of Yazd, who accompanied me hither” (Letters of Sir William Jones, letter no. 433, p. 697). Also see Jones’s letter to John Shore, dated 16 August 1787, in Letters of Sir William Jones, letter no. 465, p. 763). Bahman’s father, Bahram, was “a confidential servant of Carim Khan tZand] …”(Jones, “Remark by the President,” Works, supplement [: 443–4).
For instance Shushtari noted that Jones had written a commentary on Muhammad ‘Ali Hazin and asked him “to note the deficiencies and excess” (Tuhfat al-’Almn, 370).
See Letters of Sir William Jones, f.n. no. 1, 659. ‘Ali Ibrahim Khan provided Jones with a copy of Tuhfat al-Hind, which he used in writing “On the Musical Modes of the Hindus,” in Works,I: 413–43. See Nur al-Hasan Ansari, “Muqaddimah ‘i musahhah,” in Tuhfat al-Hind, 41.
In a letter to Charles Wilkins dated 17 September 1785, Jones wrote, “In the meantime, pray tell Mohhammed Ghauth, that … I wish him to set about the Inscription from Gaia, which you so wonderfully deciphered … ” (Letters of Sir William Jones, 682).
He was the author of Siyar al-muta’akhirin, which was published as A Translation of the Seir Mutaqharin; or View of Modem Times (Calcutta, 1799; Calcutta: T. D. Chatterjee, 1902).
On the last five scholars see Jones’s letter to “the first Marquis of Cornwallis, Governor-General of Bengal in Council,” dated 13 April 1788, in Letters of Sir William Jones, letter no. 487, p. 802.
See Letters of Sir William Jones, letter no. 465, p. 762.
Jones to Charles Wilkins, 17 September 1785, in Letters ofSir William Jones, 683.
Mirza Itesa Modeen, Shigurf Namah I Velaet, or Excellent Intelligence Concerning Europe; Being the Travels of Mirza Itesa Modeen, in Great Britain and France, trans. James Edward Alexander (London: Parbury, Allen, 1827), 65–6.
See Mirza Itesa Modeen, Shigurf Namah, 64–5.
The editor of Jones’s Works has identified the “foreign nobleman” as Baron Reviski. See Jones, Works, I: f.n. 129.
William Jones, A Grammar of the Persian Language (London: W. and J. Richardson, 1771), xvi-xvii.
According to Arberry, “Early in 1768 Jones made the aquaintance of Count Reviczki, at that time resident in London, and was delighted to hail him a fellow-admirer of Persian poetry.” See A. J. Arberry, “The Founder: William Jones,” in Oriental Essays: Portraits of Seven Scholars (London: Geoge Allen & Unwin, 1960), 48–86, quote on 50. For Jones’s correspondences with Reviczky, see Letters of Sir William Jones, letters no. 2(1768), 4–5; no. 3 (April 1768), 6–12; no. 4 (1768), 12–13; no. 9 (Nov. 1768), 20; no. 28 (1770), 49–51; no. 30 (May 1770), 52–4; no. 32 (1770), 56–62; no. 46 (1771), 82–7; no. 58 (1771), 105–9; no. 101 (1775), 179–80. Also see Garland Cannon, Oriental Jones: A Biography of Sir William Jones, 1746–1794 (New York: Asia Publishing House, 1964), 14–15.
Cannon, Oriental Jones, 10–13; S. N. Mukherjee, Sir William Jones: A Study in Eighteenth-Century British Attitudes to India (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 22–3. It is probable that the so called “Syrian teacher” of Jones was no other than Mirza I’tisam al-Din.
Jones, AGrammar of the Persian Language, xiv.
On the limitation of Jones’s knowledge of Persian see Garland H. Cannon, “Sir William Jones’s Persian Linguistics,” Oriental Society, 78 (1958), 262–73. Also reprinted in Thomas A. Sebeok, Portraits of Linguistics: A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746–1963 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1966), 36–57.
Jones, A Grammar of thePersian Language, xv.
William Jones, Lettre a Monsieur A*** du P***, dans laquelle est compris l’examen de sa traduction des livres attribues a Zoroastre (London, 1771). For summaries of this controversy see Arthur D. Waley, “Anquetil Duperron and Sir William Jones,” History Today 2 Uanuary 1952), 23–33; Haug, The Parsis, 18–23; Max Miiller, “Introduction” in The Zend-Avesta, xiv-xxv; Edward G. Brown, A Literary History of Persia: From the Earliest Times until Firdawsi (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 44–59; Cannon, Oriental Jones, 14–15.
Jones, “The History of the Persian Language,” in Works,Ii: 303–28, quote on 306.
Jones continued, “But let the rosy-cheeked Frenchman, to give him his own Epithet, rest happy in the contemplation of his personal beauty, and the vast extent of his learning: it is sufficient for us to have exposed his follies, detected his imposture, and retold his invectives, without insulting a fallen adversary, or attempting, like the Hero in Dryden’s Ode, to slay the slain.” See Jones, “The History of the Persian Language,” in Works, II: 307.
John Richardson, “A Dissertation on the Languages, Literature, and Manners of Eastern Nations,” in his A Dictionary:Persian,Arabic, and English, rev. Charles Wilkins (London: J. L. Cox, 1829), i-lxxxii, quote on p. vb.
Richardson, “A Dissertation,” ivb-vb.
In 1675 Pierre Besnier wrote, “Besides the Latin makes a friendly meeting between the Eastern, and Western languages; as to the first alone it owns birth and rise, so the others do to it … I consider the Latin under three different regards, as the daughter of the languages of the East, as the Mother of those in the West, and as the Sister of the more Northerne.” See Pierre Besnier, A Philosophical Essay for the Reunion of Languages, trans. Henry Rose (Oxford: J. Good, 1675; Menston: The Scholar Press, 1971), 14.
Jones, “On the Persians,” 83; cited in Max Miiller, The Sacred Languages of the East, translated by various Oriental Scholars, ed. F. Max Muller (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1965), 4: xx.
Max Muller, The Sacred Languages of the East, 4: xx. Hans Aarsleff also views Jones as the founder of modern philology. See his The Study of Language in England, 1780–1860 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 124.
Muller, The Sacred Languages of the East, 4: xx-xxi.
The history of linguistics texts often opens with entries on William Jones. For instance see Sebeok, Portraits ofLinguistics. The first three articles in this volume are devoted to Jones.
Siraj al-Din Khan Arzu, Muthmir [Musmir], ed. Rehana Khatoon (Karachi: The Institute of Central and West Asian Studies, 1991). According to Rehana Khatoon, “Khan-i Arzu is also the first scholar in both the East and the West who introduced the theory of similarities of two languages [tavafuq-i lisanayn], meaning that Sanskrit and Persian are sister languages. His ideas in this regard are contained in his monumental work being discussed here, i.e. the Muthmir. The work has not yet been thoroughly studied and made a subject of serious assessment; [a]nd this has prompted me to undertake and prepare a critical edition of the Muthmir.” See Rehana Khatoon, “Introduction,” in Muthrnir, 43.
Muller, “Introduction,” in The Sacred Languages of the East, iv: xx.
The term tavafiuq literally means concordance or concurrence.
Students and disciples of Arzu included Tik Chand Bahar, Rai Rayan Anand Ram Mukhlis (d. 1751), Bindraban Das Khushgu, Mir Taqi Mir (c.17221810), Mirza Muhammad Rafi Sauda (1713–80), Najm al-Din Shah Mubarak Abru (1692–1747), Sharaf al-Din Mazmun (c.1689–1745), and Mustafa Khan Yakrang.
Muhammad Husayn Azad, Ab-i Hayat, 121; cited in Muhammad Sadiq’s A History of Urdu Literature (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1984), 91. Earlier than Azad, Qudartullah Qadiri remarked, “Just as all theologians are the lineal descendants of Abu Hanifa, similarly it would be quite appropriate to consider all Hindi [Urdu] poets as his [Arzu’s] descendants.” Cited in Sadiq’s A History of Urdu Literature, 91.
In a letter to John Shore dated 24 June 1787, Jones wrote, “the Dabistan also I have read through twice with great attention … On the whole, it is the most amusing and instructive book I ever read in Persian.” See Letters of Sir William Jones, no. 461, 739.
See Chapter 5.
According to Garland Cannon, Bahman “had fled the wrath of Ali Murad (d. 1785), the Persian king, who had killed his family. He became a reader of Jones’s law digest and other projects in Nov. [1785?].” See Letters of Sir William Jones, no. 433, fn. 3, 697.
Muller, “Introduction,” in The Sacred Books of the East ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), iv: xx.
Jones, “The Sixth Discourse,” all quotes on 81; also appears in Arzu, Muthrnir, 176–7.
Discussing the “phenomenon of reification,” Georg Lukacs explained that “[ilts basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fimdamental nature: the relation between people” (emphasis added). See his History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1971), 83.
This analysis is based on a comparison with Shiv Parshad’s Tarikh-i Fayz Bakhsh (Oxford: Bodleian, Caps.Or.C. 2).
William Francklin, The History of the Reign of Shah-Aulum, the Present Emperor of Hindostaun (London, 1798). The claim is based on Ghulam ‘Ali Khan’s Ayi’in ‘Alamshahi (Oxford: Bodleian Library, Elliot 3).
My analysis is based on an examination of a collection of documents belonging to Samuel Turner, which are held at the Bodleian Library (shelfmark 2822, Ms. Pers.a.4). A French translation of the Account (London: W. Bulmer, 1800) was published in the same year, Ambassade au Thibet et au Boutan (Paris: F. Bussion, 1800). In the following year it was also translated into German, Gesandtschaftsreise an den hof des teshoo lama durch Bootan urzd einen theil von Tibet (Hamburg: B. G. Hoffman, 1801).
William Moorcroft, Travels in the Himalayan provinces of Hindustan and the Panjab; in Ladakh and Kashmir; in Peshawar, Kabul, Kunduz, and Bokhara … from 1819 to 1825 (London: John Murray, 1841).
See Mir ‘Izzat Allah, Ahval-i Safar-i Bukhara (Oxford: Bodleian Library, Bodl. OR. 745).
Among other English language texts that are based on Persian works is Captain William Henry Sleeman, Ramaseeana, or a Vacabulary of the Peculiar Language Used by the Thugs (Calcutta, 1836), which is based on Mustalahat-i Thugan of ‘Ali Akbar.
On Sir Gore Ouseley’s travel to Iran see Denis Wright, The English Amongst the Persians During the Qajar Period, 1787–1921 (London: Heinemann, 1977), 12–17.
For a fraction of Mirza Salih’s report see Mirza Salih Shirazi, “Safar Namah’i Isfahan, Kashan, Qum, Tihran,” in Majmuah ‘i Safar namah-hayi Mirza Salih Shirazi (Tehran: Nashr-i Tarikh-i Iran, 1364), 5–36. The official mihmandar of this delagation was Mirza Zaki Mustawfi-i Divan-i A’la. See ‘Abd al-Razzaq Maftun Dunbuli, Ma’asir-i Sultaniyah (reprint of 1825/1241 edition; Tehran: Ibn Sina, 1351/1972), 247.
William Price, A Grammar of the Three Principal Oriental Languages, Hindoostani, Persian, and Arabic on a Plan Entirely New, and Perfectly Easy; to Which is Added, a Set of Persian Dialogues Composed for the Author, by Mirza Mohammed Saulih, of Shiraz; Accompanied with an English translation (London: Kingsbury, Parbury, and Allen, 1823).
Price, A Grammar of the Three Principal Oriental Languages, vi. The text of Mirza Salih’s “Persian Dialogues” appear on p. 142–88, followed by a French translation, “Dialogues Persans et Francais,” 190–238.
William Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries of the East, more Particadarly Persia (London: Redwell and Marti1,1819–23) t: xvii.
The extract in Ouseley’s Travels in Various Countries of the East,I: xvii, is identical to the opening of Mirza Salih’s text as appeared in Price’s A Grammar of the Three Principal Oriental Languages, 142–3.
The colophon of the manuscript, Su’al va Javab, held at the Bodleian Library, which belongs to the Ouseley Collection, notes that it was written for Sir William Ousely (Oxford: Bodleian Library, Ouseley 390).
Price, A Grammar of the Three Principal Oriental Languages, vii. In a note Price remarked: “Since that period Mirza Saulih came to England with Col. Darsy, in order to learn the English Language, returned to Persia in 1819, and lately arrived on a special Mission from the King of Persia to his Majesty George the Fourth. On my presenting him with a copy of his own dialogues, he expressed himself much pleased, and promised to compose a new set” (vi).
William Price, Journal of the British Embassy to Persia; Embellished with Numerious Views Taken in India and Persia; Also, A Dissertation Upon the Antiquities of Persepolis, 2 vols (London: Thomas Thorpe, 1932).
Denis Wright, The Persians Amongst the English: Episodes in Anglo-Persian History (London: I. B. Tauris, 1985), 73.
John Binder and David Wellbery (eds.), The End of Rhetoric: History, Theory, and Practice (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1990), 16.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2001 Mohamad Tavakoli-Targhi
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tavakoli-Targhi, M. (2001). Orientalism’s Genesis Amnesia. In: Refashioning Iran. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403918413_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403918413_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-42687-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-1841-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)