Rival campaigns Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860

in august 1860, müller wrote members of convocation plans teach broad range of topics in addition sanskrit, including comparative philology, indian history, , literature. teaching language mean return boden s generosity, wrote. in way, supply efficient missionaries, useful civil servants, , distinguished boden scholars.

in turn, williams wrote if boden had left instructions man elected should 1 secure world-wide reputation sanskrit chair, confess should have hesitated prosecute design. however, not case , unjustifiable in terms of statutes governing chair if professor lecture on wider topics. in view, vedic literature of less importance , philosophical literature mystical , abstruse , whereas classical or modern period (the laws, 2 heroic poems, , plays) important . reminding readers had edited 2 sanskrit plays, stated literature of third period constituted sanskrit scriptures, not ( has hitherto been believed ) veda, still less rig veda . commented müller s edition of rig veda requiring expenditure of time, labour, money, , erudition far greater ever bestowed on edition of holy bible , adding boden did not intend aid in missionary work perpetuating , diffusing obsolescent vedic scriptures. claimed own approach sanskrit scholarship, dictionaries , grammar books, suited english minds , unlike müller s continental , philosophical approach, dealt texts no longer relevant modern hindus missionaries not benefit studying.

in letter times published on 29 october 1860, müller took issue williams. claim unjustifiable teach history, philosophy, , other subjects boden professor, quoted 1 of wilson s public lectures in had said had been intention offer general view of institutions , social condition, literature, , religion of hindus. noted had published in 3 areas williams divided sanskrit literature, , disputed williams s views on relative importance of vedic literature reference review of 1 of publications wilson. williams, said, stands yet alone in asserting heroic poems , plays, not vedas, real scriptures. refused accept williams s estimate of labour involved in edition of rig veda, , said compare little effort carried out on bible irreverent. concluded attempting rebut claim boden not have wanted vedic scriptures supported. noted bishop of calcutta (george cotton) had written of greatest importance missionaries study sanskrit , scriptures able meet pundits on own ground , , bishop s view nothing more valuable in work müller s edition, , wilson s translation, of rig-veda.

after letter, williams complained müller conducting campaign in newspapers , misrepresenting williams saying. müller asked 3 professors , provost of queen s college consider accuracy of letter, , pronounced in favour. in beckerlegge s view, these replies , counter-replies did illustrate increasingly heated tone of exchanges between 2 men , supporters. if protagonists prospective members of parliament , in words of 1 modern scholar. terence thomas, british lecturer in religious studies, records insults regarding nationality of max müller , proficiency of monier williams sanskritist being bandied , forth supporters. example, 1 of boden scholars @ oxford, robinson ellis, claimed williams had not been able prove read sanskrit text. when challenged, later amended claim williams read text when compare one, describing mechanical labour paid @ public libraries @ paris , berlin @ rate of half crown year.

each had committee of helpers; williams had two, 1 in london, other in oxford. spent on £1,000 on campaign – as boden professor paid in year. in june 1860, müller complained in letter mother having write each 1 of 4,000 electors, scattered on england ; said wished had not thought of standing election, adding if don t win, shall cross! .

cite error: there <ref group=n> tags on page, references not show without {{reflist|group=n}} template (see page).