Csoma completes his Tibetan studies at Kanum; Correspondence with
Dr. Wilson, Captain Kennedy, and Mr. B. H. Hodgson.
The perusal of Dr. Gerard’s almost forgotten letter gives a vivid
picture of the strange surroundings in the midst of which Csoma was
placed whilst studying at the Buddhist Monastery among the Himalayan
Mountains. In the truthfulness of the description, Gerard’s pen
surpasses almost the fancies of imagination. The devoted student spent
four winter seasons exposed to the rigorous climates of Yangla and
Kanum in the pursuit, not of imaginary theories, as has been so often
stated of him, but in the fulfilment of engagements which he undertook
for the Government.
“He is frequently disconsolate, and betrays it in involuntary
sentiment, as if he thought himself forlorn and neglected.... He told
me with melancholy emphasis,” continues Dr. Gerard, “that on his
delivering up the Grammar and Dictionary to the Government, he would be
the happiest man on earth, and could die with pleasure on redeeming his
pledge.”
Dr. Gerard has given expression in another place of the deep interest
he felt for Csoma’s studies and in his personal concerns. On the 22d of
January he wrote a private letter also to Mr. Fraser; a fragment only
of it is extant, in the Library of the Asiatic Society in Calcutta.
Even this fragment, however, is worth preserving, as it relates to
Moorcroft’s papers, and shows the attempts made and the anxiety
displayed by the Government to recover them after his death, and also
bears witness to the confidence felt in the ability and in the spirit
of enterprise of the Hungarian traveller, when there were thoughts of
entrusting him with the mission to Andkhoi in Bokhara, where Moorcroft
died.
This is the fragment, dated Sabathú, 22d of January 1829:—
“My dear Fraser,—Since my return from Kunawar I often thought that I
might be doing a service to the Hungarian traveller by just making
known a few facts connected with his pursuits and situation in that
sequestered region. I am anxious enough to believe that I shall not be
imposing a tax on your patience, and I am sure I shall not be deceived
in anticipating your views and estimation of an object so deserving of
encouragement. It is natural in me to interest myself in Mr. Csoma’s
welfare, since I was the first who received him at Sabathú, and I am
now the last who has seen him amongst his researches, and on this
account I perhaps have the best knowledge of his situation and the
objects that can be obtained.
“In sending you the accompanying remarks, [35] I have a conviction that
your own high and liberal mind may suggest some means calculated to
bring Mr. Csoma into notice, for where merit is the appeal, I need not
stay to consider the effect with you. I have a strong idea that Sir
Charles Metcalfe would not be an unmoved spectator of zeal and talent
so remarkable as that which characterises the individual who is now
devoting himself to researches so interesting amidst the rigours of
climate and the restraints of poverty. Sir Charles took sufficient
interest in him from Moorcroft’s fate, when he forwarded my application
to go to Ladak, for the purpose of requesting the Hungarian to
undertake the trip for the recovery of his papers, to excite me to rely
upon one so generous. And I am an” —— The fragment ends here.
What splendid testimony is this to the confidence which was reposed in
the unselfishness and ready self-sacrifice of the Hungarian scholar,
who at that time was engaged in his studies at the Monastery of Pukdal!
Moorcroft’s papers had been secured, before Csoma was made aware of the
important project regarding himself.
William Moorcroft, the ill-fated traveller whose name is so intimately
connected with the Hungarian philologist, was director of the
Government studs in India. Attached to the cavalry, he arrived in
Bengal in 1808, and was soon afterwards selected for employment as
Government Agent in Western Asia; during his journey he suffered much
hardship, and was more than once in danger of his life. In 1819 he
started on a fresh expedition, accompanied by his relative, George
Trebeck, and visited the Panjáb, Kashmir, Tibet, and Bokhara. Having
faced many obstacles and escaped imminent perils, he was seized with
fever and died on the 27th August 1825. His tomb is at Andkhoi in
Bokhara, to which place he went for the purpose of buying horses for
Government. Moorcroft’s diary was arranged and edited in two volumes by
Dr. H. H. Wilson, under the title, “Travels in the Himalayan Provinces,
by William Moorcroft and George Trebeck, in 1819–1825. London, 1841.”
At page 338 of vol. i. is described the first meeting between Moorcroft
and the Hungarian traveller in the valley of Dras in Ladak.
Gerard’s friendly pleading for Csoma was not without effect. We find
extracts from his letter cited in the Government Gazette of 9th July
1829, with the following prefatory remarks:—
“The extracts read from Dr. Gerard’s paper respecting the labours of
Mr. Csoma de Körös were of a most interesting nature, not only as
giving a vivid idea of the admirable, we may say heroic devotion, of
that singularly disinterested and enterprising person to the cause of
literature, in spite of difficulties that would confound a less
determined spirit, but as referring to depositories of learning, which
for ages have been confined to a peculiar people, of whose language and
institutions but little is known to Europeans, but which, through the
fortunate instrumentality of Mr. Csoma de Körös and his learned
associate the Lama, it is hoped, will not long remain a fountain sealed
to the literary world.”
In the same article occurs a paragraph which shows the ultimate aim of
Csoma as to his researches:
“In the libraries of the ancient cities of Teshi Lhunpo and Lassa there
are said to be many valuable works, which the world is likely to become
acquainted with only through the instrumentality of such a genius as
Mr. Csoma. He is very anxious to get to the country of the Mongols, and
make every possible research into the history and institutions of that
ancient people.”
The Council of the Asiatic Society of Bengal resolved to grant Csoma a
monthly allowance, equal to that he was receiving already from
Government. This step was due to the exertions of Sir Charles Metcalfe,
Mr. Simon Fraser, Mr. Calder, Mr. Mackenzie, and Captain Stacy, all of
whom strongly urged that Csoma should be more liberally provided for
while studying at Kanum. Captain Stacy, in a letter dated 3d May 1829,
to the address of Dr. Wilson, says: “Csoma expends very little upon
himself; he dresses in the coarse blanket of the country, and eats with
the natives.”
There is no doubt, therefore, that Csoma had to suffer many privations,
but he never uttered a word of complaint on that account; what affected
him deeply, however, was the thought of his being neglected and
forgotten in the far-off monastery. We know, however, that such was not
the case. A stranger and foreigner could never wish to find warmer
friends than Csoma found in Captain Kennedy and Dr. Gerard. The former
was always a faithful exponent of his wishes before Government and
private friends, and Dr. Gerard’s letters testify to the sincere
interest he took in him. Dr. Wilson, on behalf of the Asiatic Society,
wrote on the 15th July 1829, informing Csoma of the Society’s
resolution as to the increase of his stipend, part of which was at once
forwarded to him through Captain Kennedy. Dr. Wilson added, “I have
been also instructed to procure for you such books as you may think
serviceable to your inquiries.”
Csoma’s character showed traits of a quiet melancholy and desponding
tendency. The following original letter, the paper of which is already
much damaged by age, shows with what anxieties his mind was beset; but,
when his isolated position is considered, and the other depressing
circumstances under which he lived, nobody will feel surprise at them.
This letter of Csoma’s to the secretary of the Asiatic Society, is
dated 21st August 1829 [36] from Kanum, and reads as follows:—
“I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, together with a
draft, dated Calcutta, 15th July 1829, which reached me this day. I
feel much obliged to the Asiatic Society for the interest they have
been pleased to take with respect to my literary inquiries in Tibet,
and for the kind resolution they came to in granting me 50 rupees a
month for my support. But since I found their resolution to be of very
indefinite character, which leaves me for the future as uncertain as I
ever was, since my first study of the Tibetan, and since I cannot
employ with advantage the offered money during the short period I have
still to stay here: I beg leave for declining to accept the offered
allowance and of returning the draft.
“In 1823, in April, when I was in Kashmir, in the beginning of my
engagement with the late Mr. Moorcroft, being destitute of books, Mr.
Moorcroft, on my behalf, had requested you to send me certain necessary
works. I have never received any. I was neglected for six years. Now,
under such circumstances and prospects, I shall want no books. If not
prevented by some unforeseen event, next year I shall be ready with my
papers. Then, if you please, you shall see what I have done and what I
could yet do.
“If the Asiatic Society will then earnestly be desirous to get further
information respecting Tibetan literature both in India and Tibet, I
shall be happy to enter into an engagement with them or with the
Government on proper terms.”
Reasons were especially given for his refusing to accept the Society’s
proffered aid, but it was nevertheless considered by Csoma’s
well-wishers a mistake to push his spirit of independence so far. This
disapproval may be guessed at from Captain Kennedy’s letter also,
addressed to Dr. Wilson. It should be borne in mind, however, on the
other hand, that Csoma was not aware of the steps taken on his behalf,
and the endeavour made by his friends to improve his position was
entirely unknown to him at Kanum. No doubt Csoma need not have held so
tenaciously to his ideas of independence; such policy was of no
advantage to either of the parties concerned.
Captain Kennedy, on forwarding Csoma’s last letter of refusal, writes
to the secretary of the Asiatic Society on the 3d of September 1829:
“I am disposed to think that, on a better acquaintance with Mr. Csoma,
you will find him a most eccentric character. He is enthusiastic in the
object of forming a grammar and lexicon of the Tibetan language, and
appears anxious to avoid the society and attentions of Europeans,
chiefly, in my opinion, to retain the incognito he lives in at the
Monastery of Kanum in Upper Besarh. He is a man of most sanguine,
hasty, and suspicious disposition. I have left no act undone to
accommodate and to meet his wishes, and I think that he feels grateful
to me; but on some occasions he has received my advances, to be
obliging, with a meanness not to be accounted for. There can be no
doubt but that he is a man of eminent talents, possessing a most
retentive memory, and apparently much versed on subjects of general
literature. He considers himself acting under a solemn pledge to
Government to furnish the grammar and lexicon by the end of the ensuing
year, at which period he proposes to proceed to Calcutta to superintend
their publication. His wants are few, and I am informed his expenses on
diet, &c., are of the most moderate description, in fact, not more than
of one of the inhabitants of the village in which he resides.
“Should you wish to have any further communications with Mr. Csoma, I
shall be most happy to be the medium of it; and I beg you will command
my best services whenever there may be occasion for them.”
Csoma’s studies among the Buddhist monks were now drawing towards
completion. On the 26th March 1830, Csoma applied for permission from
Government to remain at Kanum till after the rainy season should cease.
Captain Kennedy notified this request to the Resident at Delhi on the
9th of June, asking at the same time for a grant to Csoma of a sum, by
way of travelling expenses, to enable him to visit Calcutta, and to
take his Tibetan books and manuscripts with him. Captain Kennedy
observes, in the course of his letter:
“I deem it my duty to mention that Mr. Csoma’s conduct has been
exemplary during the three years he has resided within the protected
British territory, and, as I have reason to believe, he has achieved
the object he had in view by visiting these states, of forming a
grammar and lexicon of the Tibetan language. I beg to submit for your
consideration, and eventually for that of Government, the propriety of
advancing this learned and enterprising individual a small sum of money
to enable him to reach Calcutta, the amount of which I do not apprehend
would exceed 500 rupees.”
This was sanctioned on the recommendation of the Resident at Delhi,
dated 14th June 1829.
Two more original letters in Csoma’s handwriting are extant, written by
him at Kanum, and addressed to Mr. B. H. Hodgson, resident at Katmandú,
in answer to certain questions which that gentleman addressed to Csoma.
These documents also are now in the possession of the Hungarian Academy
of Sciences. They were generously presented by Mr. Hodgson in 1882,
with a request for them to be preserved among the relics of the late
Tibetan scholar, in the archives at Budapest. These letters refer to
questions of much scientific interest at the period when they were
written, and throw light upon the history of Buddhistic literature,
when Hodgson and Csoma were fellow-labourers in the same field of
Oriental learning. They have not been published before, and deserve,
therefore, to find a place in this biography.
The first letter is dated 30th December 1829, and reads thus:
“Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of the volume you have favoured
me with, which reached me on the 21st instant. I feel much obliged for
the kindness you have done me, in making me acquainted with the names
and contents of so many valuable works you have brought to public
notice, and with many other things respecting Buddhism in Nepal. Since
you desired me that I should make any remarks on the twelfth article of
the volume, I beg you will kindly accept of some observations I take
the liberty to make on the subject. And I beg to have me excused for my
not having been more particular, as perhaps you had expected from me;
my circumstances have not permitted me to do otherwise.
2. “(With reference to p. 410, &c.) Tibetan words, if written properly,
are very distinct for the eye, but very confused for the ear, as they
are generally uttered. In the whole of Tibet there is but one mode of
writing, with respect to orthography; there are several ways of
pronunciation, according to the several distant provinces. Hence that
great discrepancy in the catalogues of Tibetan words furnished by
several Europeans. There are to be found in Tibet several examples of
alphabets used anciently in India. The late Mr. Moorcroft had sent to
Calcutta a copy of the same set that have been exhibited in the plates.
The Lantsa letters and their skeletons (that have been likewise
represented on the same plate) are used sometimes by the Tibetans now
too for inscriptions. They generally use their own characters, either
the capital or the small. Their literature in general is contained in
books written in any of these two. When one is acquainted with the
principles of the Tibetan language, he can read easily both.
3. “Many of the works enumerated, pp. 424, 427, 431, are to be found
also in the Tibetan translations. Since I shall give the names or
titles of all the several works contained both in the Kah-gyur and the
Stan-gyur divisions of the Tibetan collection, I thought not necessary
to specify those now I have found in the mentioned pages. The Lalita
Vistára, as has been observed on page 424, is in Tibet also one of the
chief authorities for the life and history of the Shakya. Likewise, in
Tibet, too, the Buddha Scriptures are of the same twelve kinds as have
been described on p. 426, the twelve Tibetan names being exactly
translated from Sanskrit.
4. “In general the whole information given of Buddhism, of the
character of Buddhistic works, and the lists of the Tathagatas, is
mostly in the same tenor or spirit as it is taken in Tibet. During my
reading of the Tibetan volumes, I have met frequently with these and
other fancied Buddhas, Bodhisatwas, &c. At the beginning of some
lectures, it is sometimes too tedious to read over all the names of
such supposed hearers. And it is especially at this occasion, that the
author of the Sútras terribly mixes divine and human things together.
The Buddhas, Bodhisatwas, and many other pretended divinities, good and
evil spirits, are, in general, fancied or metaphysical beings, which in
the Buddhistic Pantheon have been multiplied to an incredible number.
It is impossible, therefore, and unnecessary too, to labour to describe
them with any precision. Their names, epithets, or attributes being
taken sometimes in a general, sometimes in a particular sense, many
times as symbolical names, or as so many models of virtue, vice, mercy,
wisdom, power, &c. Since the Buddhistic works consist not merely of
wild metaphysical speculations, but contain several volumes of
practical topics also, we should be acquainted with the whole, and
judge accordingly. When Europeans shall have been acquainted with the
practical part of the Buddhistic doctrine, with the language of Tibet,
and with the several useful popular works it contains, then I think
they will excuse them in some degree for the extravagance in the
dogmatical part of their religion.
5. “(With respect to p. 434.) According to the testimony of several
Tibetan writers, the Tibetans have derived their religion and
literature in general from India, commencing about the middle of the
seventh century after Christ, and have formed their alphabet in
imitation of the Devanagari letters. Several Tibetan scholars resided
for many years in India, and became well acquainted with the Sanskrit
literature of the Buddhists of that country. Learned pandits were
invited many times to Tibet to assist the Tibetans in the translation
of the Sanskrit works. Many translations have been made in concert, and
according to certain plans. By these means they have wonderfully
improved and enriched the Tibetan language. They have formed, with a
few exceptions, words for the expression of everything that occurred in
Sanskrit. Now the Tibetan language, if well understood, may be
consulted with advantage for the explanation of many technical terms in
the whole complicated system of the Buddhistic doctrine, there being
extant several collections of Sanskrit and Tibetan words and phrases
for this purpose.
6. “(With respect to the 422d page.) The doctrine taught by Shakya,
according to many Tibetan authorities, was collected at three different
times after his death. It was first collected immediately after his
decease, by three of his principal disciples, whose names are
mentioned. The second collection was made one hundred and ten years
after the death of Shakya, in the time of the King Ashoka or Asoka. The
third in the time of Kaniska, the king, four hundred years after the
death of Shakya, when the followers of Buddha had separated themselves
into eighteen different classes or sects. After that time, it is
probable the Buddhistic doctrine in India itself has undergone several
modifications, and the more so in the countries into which it was
afterwards propagated. It was commenced to be introduced into Tibet in
the seventh century after Christ, was very flourishing in the ninth, it
was greatly persecuted and almost suppressed in the beginning of the
tenth, it was again firmly re-established in the eleventh century. What
progress it made afterwards in Tibet and in the Mongol countries, there
are many historical documents thereof extant in the Tibetan books.
7. “Thus I have endeavoured to express my sentiments, with respect to
some pages of the twelfth article of the volume, without touching the
topics of higher speculation.
“I beg you will kindly excuse me for any defect. I shall do all in my
power, in my further studies, to merit the continuance of your favour.
I have the honour to remain, with much respect,” &c.
The second letter, dated 29th April 1830, is an answer to Mr. Hodgson’s
strictures on subjects contained in Csoma’s preceding communication. We
find in what follows another proof of the writer’s diffidence and
modesty, which Mr. Torrens so forcibly points out as “the surprising
trait of Csoma’s character.” In this letter Csoma postpones his full
reply to a more favourable opportunity, because, he adds, “I know not
how to write Sanskrit and Tibetan words in Roman characters,” and that
he was “unacquainted with the Sanskrit,” nor had he the “command of the
English language.”
“Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of the pamphlet, together
with your letter of the 15th of February last, which reached this place
on the 14th instant. I am much obliged for your kindness.
2. “I have seen with much satisfaction the great coincidence of the
Buddhistic faith in Nepal with that of Tibet. The figures on the Plates
I., II., IV., the list of the Buddha Scriptures on p. 4, &c., and the
whole sketch of Buddhism, exhibit a wonderful agreement, with a few
exceptions. Since I am unacquainted with Sanskrit, neither know I how
to write the Sanskrit and Tibetan in Roman characters to be
intelligible, nor have I the command of the English language, I beg you
will kindly excuse me for my not having entered upon particulars on the
subject. I shall find opportunity, perhaps, hereafter to supply the
defect of my present communication.
3. “I beg you will pardon me; I have never said that the Tibetans have
only one alphabet of their own. If you will inspect the second
paragraph of my former letter to you, you will find that I have stated
there, ‘In the whole of Tibet there is but one mode of writing, with
respect to orthography, &c.’ But since you seem to have been offended
at my expression, I beg now to state: out of the four alphabets printed
opposite page 418 of the volume formerly sent to me, the three first
are Tibetan, called capital, small, and running hand; the fourth, or
Lantsa (Lanja), is of India, but used sometimes in Tibet too for
inscriptions in Sanskrit. And the infinite variety of letters given
opposite to page 420 of the volume referred to are not Tibetan, neither
are used by Tibetans, but belong to different parts of India, whence
they were brought to Tibet in ancient times.
4. “The six predecessors of Shakya, occasionally mentioned in the
Tibetan volumes too, I think are imaginary Buddhas, like those one
thousand others (among whom Shakya also is described with his
predecessors) that are to appear hereafter, and that are particularly
in the Bhadra Kalpika, the first volume of the Door Sútra class of the
‘Kah-gyur.’
5. “Buddhism was unknown in Tibet till the seventh century of our era.
It was derived from India. The Buddhistic doctrine is contained now in
Tibet in many hundred volumes. It is no easy task to ascertain how many
books or treatises were borrowed from Sanskrit, and how many are
original. It would require a perfect knowledge both of the Sanskrit and
the Tibetan languages. The volumes of the ‘Kahgyur’ are generally
attributed to Shakya; those of the ‘Stan-gyur’ to some fancied
Bodhisatwas and to several Indian pandits. Besides these, there are
many composed in Tibet in imitation of the former. I beg you will
kindly excuse me for my defect in answering to the desired points.”