On the Education of the People of India/Appendix
APPENDIX.
Extract from the Report of the Committee appointed by the Indian Government to inquire into the State of Medical Education.
Agreeably to your Lordship’s direction to that effect, we called upon Mr. Tytler to prepare a synopsis of what he conceives the pupils at the Institution should be taught in the different branches of medical science. This document, according to our view of it, does not contain by any means such a comprehensive and improved scheme of education as the circumstances of the case indicate the absolute necessity of. Leaving it entirely out of the question, then, at present, we would very respectfully submit to your Lordship in council our serious opinion, that the best mode of fulfilling the great ends under consideration, is for the state to found a Medical College for the education of natives; in which the various branches of medical science cultivated in Europe should be taught, and as near as possible on the most approved European system; the basis of which system should be a reading and writing knowledge on the part of candidate pupils of the English language, and the like knowledge of Hindustanee or Bengallee, and a knowledge of arithmetic; inclusive, of course, of proper qualifications as to health, age, and respectability of conduct. The Government might select from the various young men, who should pass the final examination, the most distinguished and deserving, for filling up vacancies as sub-assistant surgeons. A knowledge of the English language, we consider as a sine qua non, because that language combines within itself the circle of all the sciences, and incalculable wealth of printed works and illustrations; circumstances that give it obvious advantages over the oriental languages, in which are only to be found the crudest elements of science, or the most irrational substitutes for it.
Of the perfect feasibility of such a proposal, we do not entertain a doubt: nevertheless, like any other, it will be found to divide the opinions of men of talent and experience. These will divide into an Oriental and an English party. Mr. Tytler’s long replies have imposed upon us the necessity of entering at greater length into the argument respecting the feasibility of the contemplated plan, than we could have wished. We beg to apologise to your Lordship for this circumstance, but as Mr. Tytler, instead of giving brief and simple answers to our questions, preferred committing them to paper in the form of long minutes; it became incumbent upon us to offer something in the way of refutation. The determined Orientalist having himself acquired the Sanscrit and the Arabic, at the cost of much and severe application, as well as of pecuniary expense, will view with great repugnance a suggestion of teaching science in such a way as may cast his peculiar pursuits into the shade, and independent of a language which he reveres as classical. The advocate for the substitution of the English language, on the other hand, will doubt whether the whole stores of Eastern literature have enabled us to ascertain a single fact of the least consequence towards the history of the ancient world; whether they have tended to improve morality, or to extend science; or whether, with the exception of what the Arabian physicians derived from the Greeks, the Arabic contains a sufficient body of scientific information to reward the modern medical student for all the labour and attention that would be much more profitably bestowed on the study of the English language; and lastly, whether the modicum of unscientific medical literature contained in the Sanscrit is worth undergoing the enormous trouble of acquiring that language.
Unlike the languages of Europe, which are keys to vast intellectual treasures, bountifully to reward the literary inquirer, those of the East, save to a limited extent in poetry and romance, may be said, without exaggeration, to be next to barren. For history and science, then, and all that essentially refines and adorns, we must not look to Oriental writers.
Mr. Tytler has favoured us with his opinions, on the question under consideration, at great length. The Rev. Mr. Duff, whose experience in instructing native youth is extensive and valuable, has also obliged us with his sentiments on the subject; which are entirely at issue with those of Mr. Tytler, who takes up the Oriental side of the question with equal ardour and ingenuity.
Mr. Tytler denies that a system of educating the natives through the medium of English would be in the least more comprehensive, or by any means so much so, as one carried on in the native languages (Mr. Tytler, in that phrase including Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian); and considers it wholly inexpedient as a general measure.
The Rev. Mr. Duff, on the other hand, although acknowledging that the native languages, by which we understand the Bengallee in the lower provinces, and the Oordoo in the higher, alone are available for imparting an elementary education to the mass of the people, affirms that the popular language does not afford an adequate medium for communicating a knowledge of the higher departments of literature, and science, &c. “No original works of the description wanted,” he observes, “have yet appeared in the native languages; and though much of a highly useful nature has been provided through European talent and perseverance no translations have been made in any degree sufficient to supply materials for the prosecution of the higher object contemplated; neither is it likely, in the nature of things, that either by original publications, or translations of standard works, the deficiency can be fully or adequately remedied, for such a number of years to come, as may leave the whole of the present generation sleeping with their fathers.” (Answer to Question 20, p. 17.)
Mr. Tytler’s reasons for his unfavourable opinion, in regard to the proposed plan, arise, he informs us, partly from the nature of language in general, and partly from the intrinsic difficulty of English itself. The difficulty, it strikes us, is magnified in Mr. Tytler’s imagination, and at any rate can scarcely be greater than that of acquiring Arabic and Sanscrit, which are about as foreign to the body of the people as English. “A bare knowledge of the English,” observes Mr. Tytler, “or of the words for objects, is plainly no increase of knowledge, unless it be accompanied with some additional information respecting the objects of which the words are the signs.” This is so self-evident a truism, that we are rather surprised Mr. Tytler should deem the stating of it of any use to his argument. The mere capability of uttering the word opium, for instance, would be of little use, unless accompanied by a knowledge of the qualities of that drug. It is not with a view to recommend a knowledge of mere words that we troubled Mr. Tytler for his opinion, and have now the honour of addressing your Lordship; but to rescue, if possible, the course of native medical education from this its pervading and crying evil; for assuredly, nothing, that has yet been made manifest to us tends to show that the pupils of the Institution, under the present system, acquire much beyond mere words; or to demonstrate, that an acquaintance with Sanscrit and Arabic vocables will give better ideas of things important to be known than English. In fact, to teach English science, English words must be used; or, in their stead, Arabic and Sanscrit ones must be coined. With the highest opinion of Mr. Tytler’s talents, acquirements, and zeal, and the greatest respect for his character, yet must we not be blinded to a certain degree of partisanship, which unconsciously, we doubt not, has apparently warped his otherwise excellent judgment on this question. A discrepancy in his opinions on this subject, however, appears to exist; for he would, to a certain extent, teach the pupils on English principles. If your Lordship will turn to Mr. Tytler’s synopsis, it will there be seen, that he proposes to teach the pupils the Latin and English names of the corporeal organs, and of the articles of the materia medica. For this purpose he would instruct them in the English system of spelling and pronunciation, in the declension of Latin nouns, and their rules of concordance. He would, in a word, lead them to the half-way house of English education, and there stop.
“English” proceeds Mr. Tytler, “is one of the most difficult of all languages, and the most diversified in its origin. It arises from three sources Saxon, Latin, and Norman-French, Its words and idioms vary in accordance with these three. Hence, a correct knowledge of it can be obtained only by a certain degree of knowledge of all the originals.” For the attainment of a hypercritical or highly scholastic knowledge, such as is not possessed by one Englishman out of a hundred, Mr. Tytler’s position may be readily acceded to. How many thousands are there, however, of Englishmen, persons of ability and intelligence in various walks of active usefulness, who know nothing, or next to nothing, of pure Saxon, Latin, and Norman-French? Nay, there is reason to suppose that there are not a few skilful and experienced surgeons not better versed in these languages, but who are valuable men in the profession notwithstanding. Will a native sub-assistant surgeon be the less capable of being taught to amputate a limb, because he cannot give the critical etymology of the words knife, limb, cut? Surely the great ends of life are not to stand still for want of knowledge of scholastic roots? It would be superfluous to point out, in a more elaborate manner, how very overstrained, and inapplicable to general experience, Mr. Tytler’s argument is.
As very apposite to the subject under consideration, we beg to submit an extract or two from a forcible article by the late Dr. Duncan, jun., on Medical Education, which was published in the Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal for 1827. “The knowledge of languages, in itself, derives its chief utility from its facilitating the acquisition of useful knowledge; and, therefore, as the mind may be nearly equally disciplined during the acquisition of any one language as of any other, their utility is directly proportional to the value of the information contained in the books written in them.” Tried by this test, how utterly mispent must be the time devoted by the native medical student to the study of Arabic, Sanscrit, and Persian! ”It is argued,” continues the article quoted, “in favour of the study of the Greek language, that it is the language of the fathers of physic; and that the terms of medical art have been almost all borrowed from it and the Latin; and that it seems impossible to understand properly their meaning, without possessing some knowledge of the sources from which they have been derived.” The first argument would be nearly equally conclusive in favour of the Arabic, that physicians might read Avicenna and Rhazes in the original; and with regard to the last, we shall reply, on the authority of Dugald Stewart. “It is in many cases a fortunate circumstance when the words we employ have lost their pedigree, or (what amounts nearly to the same thing,) when it can be traced by those alone who are skilled in ancient and modern languages. Such words have in their favour the sanction of immemorial usage, and the obscurity of their history prevents them from misleading the imagination, by recalling to it the objects or phenomena to which they owed their origin. The notions, accordingly, we annex to them, may be expected to be peculiarly precise and definite.” (Stewart’s Phil. Essay, p. 184.) Indeed all attempts at descriptive terminology have utterly failed, and have impeded, instead of advancing, the progress of knowledge. “Medicine (observes the same eminent writer, in another place,) is a practical profession. That knowledge is most essential to its students, which renders them the most useful servants of the public; and all reputation for extrinsic learning (such, for instance, as Sanscrit and Arabic,) which is acquired at the expense of practical skill, is meretricious, and deceives the public, by dazzling their judgment.”
Although Mr. Tytler has throughout, unconsciously to himself, we doubt not, overstrained his argument, yet is there one passage which, we are free to confess, trenches on the extravagant. “The great sources of our language,” he states, “must be shown; the Saxon, the Latin, and the French. We must explain what words and what idioms are derived from each, and what changes they have undergone in their passage. Till this be all done, difficult as it may seem, we may by much practice impress upon the natives a sort of jargon, and agree to call it English; but it will bear scarcely more resemblance to real English than to the dialect of the Hottentots.” In a word, if we do not make lexicographers of native sub-assistant surgeons, they will not be able to set a fracture, or to prescribe a dose of calomel; and their English remarks or directions, though perfectly intelligible, will amount, in fact, to nothing but a Hottentot jargon! Need we, in refutation of this exaggerated view, remind your Lordship, that there are many respectable native gentlemen in Calcutta, who both speak and write English correctly and fluently? The works of the late Rammohan Roy were not written in a Hottentot dialect; and at this moment there are three newspapers in Calcutta printed in the English language, and yet edited by natives. Why should not other native students be equally successful with those alluded to? We readily grant that much is to be yet done to render the English language more popular in India; but assuredly the most likely way of effecting this very desirable end, is not to bestow a premium upon the study of the Arabic, Sanscrit, and Persian, and to close the portal of employment to the English student.
According to Mr. Tytler, it is not only the difficulty of acquiring the English, which is such a formidable obstacle in the way of the learner, but the almost insurmountable one of finding properly qualified English teachers. We beg to refer your lordship to his observations on this head, contenting ourselves with the remark, that if English is not to be taught to native medical students, until such an utopian selection of schoolmasters as Mr. Tytler indicates be made, then must the English language, and the treasures of scientific knowledge it contains, belong to them a fountain sealed.
Mr. Tytler has several elaborate comments on the study of Greek and Latin, the scope of which is to show, that these languages have a greater affinity to the English language, than English has to Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian. The argument is ingenious, but far from conclusive. Latin and Greek, indeed, were the languages of the learned in Europe, as Arabic and Sanscrit are of the learned in India. There the parallel ends. English, however, enjoys an advantage that Latin did not at the epoch alluded to by Mr. Tytler. It is a living language; it is the language of a great people, many of whom, it may now be expected, will settle in this country; it is also the language of the governing power. It is not too much to expect that the time is not far distant when English will become much more popular than it is, and when to speak and write it correctly will be deemed a distinguishing privilege. Let English have fair play, and be placed at least upon a par with Sancrit, Arabic, and Persian, and it will become manifest to the most indifferent observer, that the natives study the latter, not because they are the best media for instruction, but because they lead to employment and competency, which the English does not. Perhaps an exception should be stated with reference to the Sanscrit—judging from a recent memorial of a number of Hindu youths to the secretary of the sub-committee to the Sanscrit College, representing, that after many years spent in the study of Sancrit, they are in a destitute condition, as they can find neither employment nor consideration among their countrymen.
So long as European literature was confined to Latin, Mr. Tytler estimates the attempts of our ancestors as mere forced imitations of the classics, the far greater part of which are now deservedly forgotten. Supposing the fact to be even as stated, it cuts both ways; and we may, by a parity of reasoning, assume, that so long as Eastern literature is confined to Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian, the writings of Indian students will be mere forced imitations of the Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian classics. But Mr. Tytler is a great deal too sweeping in his remarks; for many of the works of our ancestors in science, morals, and poetry, that were written in Latin, so far from being forgotten, are held in the highest estimation, even at this day, and are remarkable no less for strength of reasoning than for purity and elegance of expression. We shall be perfectly content if native students should be found to think as justly, and write as beautifully, in English, as Buchanan, Bacon, and various others did in Latin; or, to come nearer our own times, and in a professional walk, as Harvey, Sydenham, Boerhaave, Haller, Heberden, and Gregory did, in the same language.It should be borne in mind, that when Latin was, it may be said, the cradle of science, the English language had not attained that fulness and correctness of which it can now legitimately boast. The style of vernacular writers was not formed, being quaint, pedantic, and vitiated; composition was in its infancy, and there were but few writers. The times, too, were far from favourable to the cultivation of letters.
To compare English composition as it was in those days, with what it afterwards became, would be to institute a comparison between a Hindoo figure-maker and Canova. Ever since the Reformation, the English language has been advancing to its present magnificent state of universality, copiousness, and beauty. It would, indeed, be a strange thing, if in our day, when more works are published in a year than were in the olden time printed in half a century, the native youth of India, who may turn to the study of English, should, in defiance of the standard works put into their hands, and in spite of precept and example, follow such pedantic and vitiated models as those alluded to by Mr. Tytler. Facts daily occurring around us, demonstrate the groundlessness of such a fear.
“As it was in Europe,” contends Mr. Tytler, “so it will be with the English productions of the natives of India; they will be a mere patchwork of sentences extracted from the few English books with which their authors are acquainted. Mr. Tytler should at least have shown, that, to produce such an effect, the circumstances were precisely the same in the two countries. How he has reached his postulate, he has not condescended to say; nor is it of much importance to know; for it is, after all, a hypothetical assumption. In recommending that native medical students should possess a knowledge of English, we are swayed by a hope, not of their writing books, good or bad, but of their thoroughly understanding and digesting valuable works in that language, comprising as it does an inestimable body of scientific information; and in progress of time, of their translating them into the vernacular tongues of India, for the benefit of their countrymen. We wish them to be able to drink at the fountainhead, instead of depending to allay their mental thirst with driblets of translations, occasionally from the hands of an European.
But the exclusive study of English, Mr. Tytler deems, will be chargeable with producing an effect which he greatly deprecates. It must necessarily, he thinks, discourage the natives from the cultivation of their own tongues. Were Arabic and Persian their own tongues, there would be some show of reason in the objection; but when we bear in mind that they are as foreign to the people as English, its validity vanishes at once. To the great body of the people, too, the Sanscrit is in effect quite a foreign language. Of the absorption of that language we need have no fear, so long as it is the interest of the Brahmins to foster it. But if the thing were possible, we are by no means disposed to view the substitution of English for these tongues as a misfortune. As to the objection, that the study of English would put an end to all native composition and indigenous literature; we would simply inquire, if there is in the world a less edifying and more barren literature than that of Hindoostan, or one that has done less for morality, philosophy, and science?
With reference to that imitation of English writers, which Mr. Tytler assumes would beset native students, that gentleman quotes with complacency a saying of Johnson, “That no man was ever great by imitation,” and amplifies the apophthegm so as to comprehend masses of men; as if the saying stood, that no people ever became great by imitation. The saying thus applied, becomes an untenable sophism; for, on reflection, we shall find that the converse of the position holds true; since civilisation itself is nothing else but a complex system of imitation.We beg now to call your Lordship’s attention to the opinions of the Rev. Mr. Duff. In reply to the question, whether, in order to teach the principles of any science to native boys, he considered it necessary that they should know Sanscrit, Arabic, and Persian? the reverend gentleman replies, that, “In reference to the acquisition of European science, the study of the languages mentioned would be a sheer waste of labour and time; since, viewed as a media for receiving and treasuring the stores of modern science, there is, at present, no possible connection between them.” On the other hand, in reply to the question,—if he thought it possible to teach native boys the principles of any science through the medium of the English language? He replied, that, “The experience of the last three years has, if possible, confirmed the conviction he previously entertained, not merely that it is possible to teach native boys the principles of any science through the medium of the English language, but that, in the present incipient state of native improvement, it is next to impossible to teach them successfully the principles of any science through any other medium than the English.” He further records his opinion, that the study of the English language might be rendered very popular among the natives. “The sole reason,” he justly observes, “why the English is not now more a general and anxious object of acquisition among the natives, is the degree of uncertainty under which they (the natives) still labour as to the ultimate intentions of Government, and whether it will ever lead them into paths of usefulness, profit, or honour; only let the intentions of Government be officially announced, and there will be a general movement among all the more respectable classes.” But the teaching of English acquires much importance, when we consider it, with Mr. Duff, as the grand remedy for obviating the prejudices of the natives against practical anatomy. “The English language,” he urges (Mr. Duff’s replies, p. 32.), “opens up a whole world of new ideas, and examples of success in every department of science; and the ideas so true, and the examples so striking, work mightily on the susceptible minds of native youth; so that by the time they have acquired a mastery over the English language, under judicious and enlightened instructors, their minds are almost metamorphosed into the texture and cast of European youth, and they cannot help expressing their utter contempt for Hindoo superstition and prejudices.”
There is an argument of fact put in by Mr. Duff, which is admirably to the point. We allude to the introduction of the English language and of English science among the Scottish Highlanders, whose native language, to this day, is the Gaelic. The parallel is a very fair one; for no people were more superstitious, more wedded to their own customs, and more averse to leaving their native country, than the Highlanders: but since the introduction of the English language among them, the state of things is much changed. The same observation applies to Ireland and Wales, where, as in the Highlands of Scotland, the English is a foreign language; and yet its acquisition is eagerly sought after by the natives of all these countries, as an almost certain passport to employment. There are medical men, natives of these countries, scattered all over the world, whose mother tongue is Welsh, Irish, or Gaelic, which, as children, they spoke for years—just as the children of European parents in India speak Hindoostanee and Bengalee; with this difference, however, that the latter soon forget the Oriental tongues; while the youth who acquire the indigenous language of Ireland, the Scottish Highlands, and Wales, never lose the language of those countries, because they do not quit them till a more advanced period of life. For the first years of youth the Highlanders at school, even of all ranks, think in the Gaelic; but this does not prevent their acquiring such a fluent and business-like knowledge of English, as to enable them to pass through life with credit, and not unfrequently with distinction. What is there in the condition, physical or moral, of the natives of this country, that should render them incapable of acquiring English as easily as the Irish, the Highlanders, and Welsh?
| (Signed) | J. Grant, | President. |
| J. C. C. Sutherland, | ||
| C. E. Trevelyan, | ||
| Thomas Spens, | Members. | |
| Ramcomul, Sen., | ||
| M. J. Bramley, |
THE END.
London :
Printed by A. Spottiswoodf,
New-Street-Square.