Multiple Personae: Friedrich Max Müller and the Persona of the Oriental Scholar

Multiple Personae

Molendijk, Arie

Scholarly Personae in the History of Orientalism, 1870-1930 DOI:

10.1163/9789004406315_004

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2019

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Molendijk, A. (2019). Multiple Personae: Friedrich Max Müller and the Persona of the Oriental Scholar. In C. Engberts, & H. Paul (Eds.), Scholarly Personae in the History of Orientalism, 1870-1930 (pp. 45-63). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004406315_004

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

45

MüllerandthePersonaoftheOrientalScholar

_full_article_language:enindien anders: engelse articletitle:0

Chapter2

Multiple Personae

Friedrich Max Müller and the Persona of the Oriental Scholar

Arie L. Molendijk

1 Introduction

Theconceptofthe“scientificpersona”or“scholarlypersona”hasbeenintro-ducedtoopenanewfieldofresearchinthestudyofthehistoryofthesciences and humanities.1The persona is located between the individual biography and the social institution. In a pioneering volume, Lorraine Daston and H. OttoSibumdefineditas“aculturalentitythatsimultaneouslyshapesthein- dividualinbodyandmindandcreatesacollectivewithasharedandrecog-nizablephysiognomy.”2DastonandSibummentionedvarious“bases”forthe persona:asocialrole(e.g.,themother),aprofession(thephysician),ananti-profession(theflâneur),acalling(thepriest).Personaearetobeviewedas historicallyconditioned:theyemergeanddisappearwithinspecificcontexts. Daston and Sibum focused on the emergence of distinct types of scholars: “Anascent[scientific]personaindicatesthecreationofanewkindofindi-vidual,whosedistinctivetraitsmarkarecognizedsocialspecies.”3Dastonand Sibumalsopointedinthisrespecttotherolethatacoming-of-ageritualmay play,suchastheinductionintocertainreligiousordersor–anexamplethey don’tgive–thedefenceofaPhDthesisandtheacceptanceoftheconcomitant rightsandobligationsofthenewdoctor,whorecentlyalsohastotakeanoath intheNetherlands. Tobeseenasascholar,onehastomeetcertainrequirements,performac-cordingtoatemplate.Scientificstatementsmustbeverifiableandbacked-up byexperimentsandstatisticalevidence.Historicaltreatisesmustprovidepre-cise information about which archives and other sources were consulted, whereas cultural anthropologists define themselves by their fieldwork and notebooks,inwhichtheykeeptrackoftheirconversationsandobservations. 1 ThispaperdrawsonArieL.Molendijk,Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016).QuotedwithpermissionofOxfordUniversityPress. 2 LorraineDastonandH.OttoSibum,“Introduction:ScientificPersonaeandTheirHistories,”

Science in Context 16(2003),1-8,at2.

Thecriteriathatdefinescholarshipmaybedisputed,especiallyintimesof transition.Ontheleveloftheoryandparadigmsthispointisnicelyillustrated bytheinsightoftheGermanphysicistMaxPlanck,whofamouslysaid:“Anew scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making themseethelight,butratherbecauseitsopponentseventuallydie,andanew generationgrowsupthatisfamiliarwithit.”4Youngscholarsaresocializedinto thenewapproachandtechniques. Muchresearch,therefore,focusesonthehistoryofinfluentialscientistsand scholars,onnewapproaches,techniquesandinstruments,andalsoonthe newdiscoveries,innovativetheoriesandparadigmshifts.Historiansofthehis-toryofscholarshipalsohaveapredilectionforthestudyofinstitutionssuchas theRoyalSocietyand“grandprojects”suchastheMonumenta Germaniae

His-torica. The scholarly persona, however, has only recently been “discovered”

andputontheresearchagenda.And,ofcourse,itmakesgoodsensetostudy modelsofscholarshipandtheethosofthisoncerare,butnowadayswide-spreadspecies.Itisevidentthattheremaybecompetingtypesofscholarly personae,forinstancetheallegedly“detached”philologistversustheOriental-istwhotravelsandstudiescontemporaryissues.Anewgenerationdenounces thepreviousgenerationas“arm-chair”scholars.Notwithstandingitscreative potentialitisnotalwayseasytoapplytheconceptofapersonainhistorical research.Atwhichlevelofabstractioncanitbemeaningfullyused?The“scien-tist”isausefulconcept,whereasthe“cook”orthe“biologicalchemist”arenot accordingtoDastonandSibum.Isthe“Orientalscholar”reallyadistincttype? Anothertrickyaspectofthenotionofthepersonaisthatittendstofocuson idealsandtooverlooktheworkonthegroundwherepracticalcircumstances, suchasashortageoftimecombinedwiththeimperativetocomequicklyto results,maybeasinfluentialasthenormsandvaluesoftheprofession. InthischapterIwillfollowtheanglesuggestedbyHermanPaul.Hehas definedscholarlypersonaeas“models,eitherpastorpresent,inheritedorin-vented,ofwhatittakestobeascholar.”5Whicharethepursuedgoods,which aretheguidingvaluesandskills,whataretherewards?AlsohelpfulisPaul’s suggestionthattheindividualscholarsfindthemselvesconfrontedwithavari- etyofmodels,whichtheyaccept,reject,revise,andmergetofittheirownsitu-ation.6Ofcourse,itiswisetosaythatpersonaehavetobeseenasideal-types 4 MaxPlanck,Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1948),trans.F.Gaynor(NewYork,NY:

PhilosophicalLibrary,1950),33.

5 HermanPaul,“WhatIsaScholarlyPersona?TenThesesonVirtues,Skills,andDesires,”History

and Theory53(2014),348-371.

6 HermanPaul,“TheVirtuesandVicesofAlbertNaudé:TowardaHistoryofScholarlyPersonae,”

thatdon’texistinpureformsinreality.Ontheotherhand,Paul’sinclinationto giveamplespacefor“individualizing”7comparisonsbetweenscholarlyper-sonaemayleadtoproblemsofdemarcation,ifeverysinglescholarintheend mouldshisorherownwayofbeingascholar.Inthatcaseitwillalsobediffi-culttodetectmajorhistoricaltransitionsinthewaysthescholarlypersonahas beenperceivedandconstructed.IwilltakethecaseofMaxMüller(1823-1900) toseehowfarthenewtoolbringsus.

2 Max Müller as an Oriental Scholar

FriedrichMaxMüller’slongcareerspannedvariousbranchesoflearning.First, hegainedfameasaSanskritist,whoeditedandtranslatedtheRig-Veda.At OxfordhewasappointedTaylorianProfessorofModernEuropeanLanguages andLiteratureandbecameinterestedincomparativephilology,whichlaidthe groundforhisfamousandcontroversialstudiesinthe“ScienceofLanguage.” His1861lecturesonlanguageattheRoyalInstitutionmadehimastarinEng-land.Theensuingbookwentthroughfourteeneditionsduringhislifetimeand wastranslatedintoFrench,German,Italian,Russian,Swedish,andDutch.He gavetheHibbertandGiffordLecturesandheisstillseenasthefounderofthe comparativestudyofreligion.HismainbiographerdividesMüller’sscholarly work into the areas of language and thought, comparative mythology, the “scienceofreligion,”missions,andphilosophyofreligion.8

AlthoughMaxMüllerwasatthecross-roadsofseveral(emerging)disci-plines,italsomakessensetoseehimasanOrientalscholar.Lookingbackat hisarrivalinOxfordinthe1840s,hecasuallyrankedhimselfasa“youngOrien-talscholar.”9TheeditionoftheRig-Veda insixvolumes, and,especially,the seriesofthetranslationsoftheSacred Books of the East(50vols,1879-1910)at theClarendonPressaddedmuchtohisprestigeinthisrespect.“FamousOrien-talistPassesAwayatOxford”wasthesubtitleoftheobituaryintheNew York

Times.10MüllerspokeatOrientalCongressesandchairedsessions,andhewas

nodoubtarespectedandatthesametimecontroversialauthorityinthisfield. 7 Paul,“WhatIsaScholarlyPersona?”365.

8 LourensP.vandenBosch,Friedrich Max Müller: A Life Devoted to the Humanities(Leiden: Brill,2002).

9 F.MaxMüller,My Autobiography: A Fragment(London:Longmans,Green,andCo,1901), 279.

10 N.N.,“Prof.MaxMuellerDead,”New York Times (29October1900).Onedaybeforethe

2.1 Assessments ManyassessmentsofMüller’swork,however,arenotveryspecificandaddress hisimportanceinverygeneralterms.InamemorialmeetingattheUniversity ofColumbiarightafterhehaddied,Müllerwascalledthegreatestscholarof hisgeneration,whereashisbiggestAmericanopponent,theSanskritistand linguistWilliamDwightWhitney,thoughthim“oneofthegreathumbugsof thecentury.”11Müller’sfriendMoncureConwaydisputedtheimpressiongiven inaNewYorkpaperthatMüllerwas“somewhatvainglorious.”Conwayadmit-tedthatMüller’sappearance(“hiserectmien,hishandsome,courtlylook”) couldperhapsleadtosuchanimpressionbutarguedthatheactuallywasa very hospitable man with many friends from all over the world. Although muchpraisewaslavishedupon“oneofthegiantsoflearning,”remarkablycrit-icalpiecesappearedintheNew York Times justafterMüller’sdeath.Anun-signedcolumnspokeoflackofsoundjudgmentonthepartofthedeceased scholar.12AnotherpieceinthesameissueoftheNew York Timeswassimilarly criticalandspokeofthe“trivialityofmanyofhiswritings.”13

Thissortofcritiqueisechoedinlaterappreciations.TypicalisprobablyFer-dinanddeSaussure’sremarkinhisposthumouslyeditedCourse in General

Lin-guistics:“MaxMüllerpopularisedthesubjectinaseriesofbrilliantifsomewhat

superficiallectures(Lectures on the Science of Language,1861),butitisnotby toomuchconsciencethathesinned.”14OnlyinIndiaMüllerseemstobestill heldinhighesteem.InhisbiographyofMüller,thefamousBengaliwriterNi-radC.Chaudhuritellshisreadershowasachildhecametoknowabouthim. Hehadlearnedfromhisfatherwho“wasnotahighlyeducatedmaninthe formalsense”howMüllerhadestablished“thatourlanguagesandtheEuro-peanlanguagesbelongedtothesamefamily…;andthatweHindusandthe 11 MoncureD.Conway,Autobiography: Memories and Experiences of Moncure Daniel

Con-way,2vols.(London:Cassell,1904),2:280;StephenG.Alter,William Dwight Whitney and the Science of Language(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2005),201.The

controversybetweenMaxMüllerandhisAmericanopponentWhitneymayexplainsome oftheharshcommentsaboutMüllerintheNewYorkTimes.TheNew York Timesof1No- vember1900announcedthememorialmeetingat7November,4.30p.m.,intheSchermer-hornHall:<http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50F12F93E5B11738DD DA80894D9415B808CF1D3>(lastaccessed29January2019).

12 N.N.,“MaxMueller,”New York Times (3November1900).

13 MontgomerySchuyler,Jr.,“MaxMuller’sServicetoScience,”New York Times(3November 1900).

14 FerdinanddeSaussure,Cours de linguistique générale(Paris:Payot,[1916]1980),16;Eng-lishversion:Course in General Linguistics,trans.RoyHarris(London:Duckworth,1983),3. Thesecondhalfofthesentenceismissinginthetranslation;cf.FerdinanddeSaussure,

Writings in General Linguistics,trans.SimonBouquetetal. (Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Europeanswerebothpeoplesdescendedfromthesameoriginalstock.”15This “discovery”–aswellashiseditionoftheRig-Veda–gaveaboosttoIndianself- understanding,Hindusnowseeingtheircountryasthecradleofhighercivili-zationtout court.AnotherexampleofMüller’sfamehereisthefactthatduring herstatevisittotheGermanDemocraticRepublicin1976theIndianprime ministerIndiraGandhiproposedatoasttoMaxMüller(whowasborninDes-sau in Eastern Germany), which caused some embarrassment among her hosts,whowerenotawareoftheirfamous,orinfamous,compatriot. AlthoughitwasMaxMüller’sambitiontoputanendtoallamateurism, manyofhiscolleagueswererathercriticalofhim.Variousthingsplayedarole here,butitstandsoutthathismanypopularexpositionsdidhisscholarlyrep-utationnogood.In1872thesecretaryoftheLondonPhilologicalSocietywrote toWhitney: AstoM.M.[MaxMüller],atourSocietyheisnotsetveryhigh…ButM. hasanicestyle,andwritesbooksthatyoungladiesandeasy-goingpeople readwithpleasure,fancyingthemselvestherebyenlightened,andsothey are,whichresultsinM.M.beinggreatlyglorifiedinsociety.Butbehind thesceneshe’snotmuchthoughtof.16 Alreadyin1867,Müller’sfriendMatthewArnoldhadreportedfromBerlinto theBritishgovernmentdepartmentofeducationthatMüller“waslosingall scientificimportance”intheGermancapitalbecauseofhisfocuson“second-aryandpopularaims.”17ItishardtosayhowpopularMüllerexactlywas,but probablyhewasoneofthemostpubliclyvisibleintellectualsofhisday.Inthis lastrespecthemayevenbecomparedtoRichardDawkins,whosincethepub-licationofthe Selfish Gene in1976hasmovedawayfromhisspecialistscientific work.MaxMüller,however,wouldhavedeniedthathislaterworkconcerning mythology,religiousstudies,andphilosophywasmerelypopularandnot“sci-entific.”

15 NiradC.Chaudhuri,Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max

Müller P. C.(Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress,1974),5.Actuallythisdiscoveryhadbeen

madeearlierbyWilliamJones(1746-1794),butisattributedheretoMüller,whichtestifies againtoMüller’sprestigeinIndia.

16 FrederickJ.FurnivalltoWhitney,27December1872,quotedinAlter,Whitney,177,303, note13.

17 MatthewArnold,The Letters of Matthew Arnold,6vols.,ed.CecilY.Lang(Charlottesville, VA:UniversityPressofVirginia,1996-2001),3:125(19March1867toHenryJohnRoby).

Whatfurtherharmedhisreputationwerehis“oftenwildandfantastic”18 theoriesabouttheoriginsofmythandlanguage.Müllerfamouslylocatedthe originoflanguagesinalimitednumberofroots,technically“phonetictypes.” Theseare“simplyultimatefacts,”comparedbyMüllerwiththePlatonicideas. Ifhehadleftitatthis,hewouldnothavebeenridiculedasmuchashasbeen thecase.However,heengagedinspeculationsabouthowtheserootshadcome intoexistence.Heexplainedthisbytheanalogythateachmetal–ifstruck– hasaparticularsound.Inasimilarwayprimitivemanmusthaverespondedto impressionsfromtheoutsidebyforming“vocalexpressions.”19Müllerspoke of“thecreativefaculty,”whichgavetoeachgeneralconcept,“asitthrilledfor thefirsttimethroughthebrain,aphoneticexpression.”20Thisideawasmock-inglycalledthe“DingDongTheory.” WiththeexceptionofhiseditionoftheRig-Veda,thehistoryofSanskrit Literatureandsomemoretechnicalstudies,MaxMüller’sworkwasoverall deemed popular and, thus, unscientific by many of his Oriental colleagues around1900.“Hehadcateredtothepublicsolongthatscholarlyworkhad becomeofonlysecondaryimportance.”21Manyreviewersthoughthistheories absurd.He“pushedoutfrailstructuresoftheoryfarbeyondthesaferealmof facts.”22Thecriticismwasthathedidnotrespectthefactsandlackedself-criti-cism.Putinaslightlyironicalfashion:“[h]ealwaysaidedhischosenscienceby hispoeticinsightandsuggestiveness.”23TheverdictwasthatMüller’simagina-tiontookoverandwasinsufficientlycheckedbyreasonandfacts.24Inthisway OrientalscholarsandcomparativelinguistsframedMüller’sdeficiencies.His GermanicupbringingincirclesofRomanticistsmayhavecontributedtothis “perception,”especiallyamongAnglo-Saxoncolleagues.Oneobituaryattrib-utedthisflawinMüllerto“defectsofmentalconstitution.”25Someopponents –impressedbythebitterbattlebetweenMüllerandWhitney–describedMül-ler’scharacterindefiant,dishonest,andeven“insultinglyunfair”terms.26 18 Schuyler,Jr.,“MaxMuller’sServicetoScience.”

19 F.MaxMüller,Lectures on the Science of Language,2vols.,7thed.(London:Longmans, Green&Co,1873),440,note57.

20 Ibid.,441.

21 E.W.Hopkins,“MaxMüller,”The Nation 71(1900),343-344,reprintedinPortraits of Linguists:

A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746-1963,ed.ThomasA.

Sebeok,2vols.(Westport,CT:GreenwoodPress,[1966]1976),1:395-399,at397;Schuyler, “MaxMuller’sService.” 22 N.N.,“MaxMueller.” 23 Hopkins,“MaxMüller,”396. 24 N.N.,“MaxMueller.” 25 Ibid. 26 Schuyler,“MaxMuller’sService,”andHopkins,“MaxMüller,”397.

Thequotationsabovenodoubtgiveaone-sidedimpression(manycontem-porariessawMüllerasahigh-rankingscholar),buttheyclearlyshowatraitof the“scholarlypersona”asfavouredbyhisOrientalistsandlinguistsatthetime. Müller’s prestige as a serious and outstanding scholar was damaged by his speculativeandpopularwork.Hemayhaveattractedbroadaudiencesofunin-formed“youngladies,”butthiswasasignthathedidnotanylongerbelong predominantlytothescholarlyguild,whodefinethemselvesbyseriouswork thatstickstothefacts.Hispublicationsandlecturesforbroadaudiences,espe-cially,aswellashispopularityingeneral,harmedMüller’sscholarlyprestige. Hisreputationasa“scientist”–hereusedinthemostgeneralsense–wasat stake.

2.2 How Did Max Müller Define His Scholarly Work?

ThefirstthingtobenotedhereisthatFriedrichMaxMüllerspentmostofhis workinglifereading,editing,translatingandinterpretingancienttexts.Itwas hisstrongconvictionthatwithoutsuchtexts,wecannotunderstandancient civilizationsandreligions.Inasimilarwayasfieldworknowadaysdefinesthe modernculturalanthropologist,thestudyandmasteryoflanguagesdefinedin thenineteenthcenturytextualscholarssuchasMüller.Secondly,althoughthe editionofancienttextswasimportantinitself,forMülleritfinallyserveda highergoal:theunderstandingofancient(religious)history.Thediscoveryof oldmanuscriptsintherecentpastandtheircriticaleditionprovidedthebasis forthescholarlystudyofhistory,especiallyofreligioushistory,asthesetexts primarilyconcernedreligiouspracticesandideas.27Onecouldevenclaimthat theseverytextsmadethenew“scienceofreligion,”asMüllertermedthecom-parative study of religions, possible. Müller described the new task of the scholarlystudyofreligionsinanalmostreverentialway:

It[is]thedutyofthosewhohavedevotedtheirlifetothestudyofthe principal religions of the world in their original documents, and who valuereligionandreverenceitinwhateverformitmaypresentitself,to takepossessionofthisnewterritoryinthenameoftruescience,andthus toprotectitssacredprecinctsfromtheinroadsofthosewhothinkthat theyhavearighttospeakontheancientreligionsofmankind,whether thoseoftheBrahmans,theZoroastrians,orBuddhists,orthoseofthe 27 F.MaxMüller,“Buddhism”inF.MaxMüller,Chips from a German

Workshop,vol.1(Lon- don:Longmans,Green&Co,1867),182-231,at186-187aboutthenecessitytostudyreli-gionsonthebasisoftheir“originaldocuments”andthefactthatthesetextswereonly recentlydiscovered.

JewsandChristians,withouteverhavingtakenthetroubleoflearning thelanguagesinwhichtheirsacredbooksarewritten.28 Amateurswithoutproperlinguisticskillsaretobekeptawayfromthenew “territory,”asMüllerpreferredtocallit,whichwaslaidbarebythe“discovery” oftheseancienttexts.Truescholarswhohavetoberespectfuloftheirsubject ofstudymustclaimthisfieldandprotectitfromintruderswhoarenotentitled togothere,becausetheydon’tknowtheoriginallanguagesofthedocuments. Thirdly,Müllersawthistypeofscholarshipasa“science,”whichwasbasi-callydefinedbytheuseofthecomparativemethod.Famously,hesaidthat“all higher knowledge is acquired by comparison, and rests on comparison.”29 Comparisonassuchhasanolderhistory,buthereitismorethanjustcompar-ingsimilarthings.Itisdefinedasastrictmethodofcomparing,asitstandsfor anevidence-basedwayofinvestigationtout court.Thecomparativeapproach “reallymeansthatourresearchesarebasedonthewidestevidencethatcanbe obtained,onthebroadestinductionsthatcanbegraspedbythehumanmind.”30 Theintroductionofthecomparativeapproachwasseeninthe1850sand1860s asabreak-throughinthestudyofman.31Finallydisciplinessuchaslinguistics, history,law,politicaleconomy,ethnologyandthestudyofreligions–some- timesreferredtosimplybytheterm“comparativereligion”–gotafirm“scien-tific”basis.Inthestudyoflanguage,thecomparativeapproachputanend, accordingtoMüller,tothe“philologicalsomnambulism”ofprevioustimes.32 Hehimselfpolemicizedagainsttheoryandabstractreasoning.33Thisself-un-derstanding and self-modelling as a fact-based scholar explains at least to someextentwhyMüllerhadgreatdifficultiesunderstandinghisopponent’s criticismofhisownallegedlyoverlyfantastictheories.

28 F.MaxMüller,Introduction to the Science of Religion(London:Longmans,Green&Co, 1873),35. 29 F.MaxMüller,op cit.,12.MaxMüllerwasaseriousandimportantscholarandistreatedas suchinmajorhistoriesoflinguisticsandthestudyofreligion.Theterm‘science’isput betweenquotationmarks,becauseitreferstoMüller’sownunderstandingofhiswork, whichwasinhisviewsimilartothe‘naturalsciences’(forinstance,formulatinglawsof development). 30 Ibid.

31 StefanCollini,DonaldWinch,andJohnBurrow,That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in

Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1983),209.

32 Müller,Introduction to the Science of Religion, 12.

33 F. Max Müller, Natural Religion, Gifford Lectures Glasgow 1888 (London: Longmans, Green,andCo,1889),196.

2.3 Mixed Categories? AmajorchallengeinanalysingtheworkofMaxMüllerasanOrientalscholar isthefactthatheclearlytransgressedthedomainofscholarshiporscience properlyspoken.Ontheonehand,heposedasadetachedscholar,mastering Orientallanguages,andcriticallyeditingtexts,buthewantedmorethan“just” scholarlyrecognition.Hisworkhadtomakeapracticalimpactaswell.One waytoachievethisaimwastoframeMüllerinhiscapacityofeditoroftheRig-Vedaasascholarlysage.Inthebiographyofherdeceasedhusband,Georgina wrotethatattheendofthe1850s“thenativesofIndia”begantospeakofMax Mülleras“MokshaMûlara,”“whichwasthusexplainedbyoneoftheirPundits: ‘HewhobypublishingtheVeda forthefirsttimeinaprintedformgave(ra)the root,(mûla)thefoundation,theknowledgeoffinalbeatitude(moksha),heis calledMokshaMûlara.’”34HisbiographerNiradChaudhuri,however,tellsan- otherstory.HerecalledthefactthatMüllerwasoftennamedthiswayinBen-galimagazinesandbooksandassumedthatthishadbeendoneinIndiaby Indians,untilhelearnedthatinthefirstvolumeoftheeditionoftheRig-Veda MüllerhimselfhadSanskritizedhisnameas“MokshaMûlara.”35Müllerprided himselfinhisroleofprovidingtheEastwith–purified–editionsoftheirown religioustraditions,whichmayevendefineanationorcivilization.36 MüllerwasconsultedbyIndiansaboutreligiousmattersthatweresubject tocontroversy.ItwouldbeinaccuratetosaythattheyaskedMüllerforadvice solelyinhiscapacityasanOrientalscholarandexpertinSanskrit,althoughhis expertiseinthesefieldswasdeemedimportant.Inmyviewitpointstoan-otherimportantrolethatMüllerfulfilled–hisroleasawhatIwouldcallasage. Onecouldspeakhereaboutamixedpersona ofscholarandsage(orauthorita-tivereligiousexpert).Althoughtheprecisetermwasnotused,itmakessense toarguethatMüllerwasexplicitlystagedasasage.IntheThoughts on Life and

ReligionpublishedafewyearsafterMüller’sdeath,forinstance,hiswifeGeor-ginacollectedsayingsfromhispublishedworkandprivatelettersanddiaries thatcouldconsolereaders.37Sheclearlywantedtoprovideconsolationand wisdom.

34 F.MaxMüller,The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Max Müller,2vols.,ed.[Geor-ginaMüller](London:Longmans,Green,andCo,1902),1:225.Cf.ibid.,2:91,Müllerto Emerson,19April1880:“ThetranslatoroftheUpanishads,MokshaMulara,sendsgreet-ingsandbestwishestohisAmericanGuru,Amarasunu,onhisseventy-seventhbirthday.” 35 Chaudhuri,Scholar Extraordinary,140.Theinterpretationbythepunditsisaccordingto

Chaudhuri“anetymologicalflight.”

36 PetervanderVeer,Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain(Prince-ton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001),119andpassim.

37 F.MaxMüller,Thoughts on Life and Religion,ed.[GeorginaMüller](London:Archibald ConstableandCompany,1906),vi:“Myearnestdesireisthatthislittlebookmayprovea

Thisgenreislatertermed“sagewriting,”aconceptforgedbyJohnHolloway tore-evaluatetheworkofVictorianwriterssuchasThomasCarlyle,Matthew Arnold,andJohnRuskin.38TheworkofcontemporaryAmericanwriterssuch asHenryDavidThoreauandRalphWaldoEmersonisalsocapturedunderthis heading.Müllerwasfamiliarwiththeworkofthesewritersandentertained manyofthemathishouse,astheyvisitedOxford.Other“sages”fromIndia (yogins, samnyasins, asMüllerreferredtothem)frequentlyvisitedhishouse. InthesecondseriesofAuld Lang Syneherecollectedmemoriesofhismany Indianfriends,39andshortlybeforehisdeathheeditedasmallvolumewith sayingsofthe“IndianSaint,”themysticRamakrishna(1836-1886),whichhad toshowthehighlevelofIndianspiritualityandphilosophy.40 TheconceptoftheVictoriansageisusedbyJohnHollowaytopointtothe valueoftheir“moralizing”and“prophetic”discourseandtoovercomeabla- tantlynegativeappreciationoftheirwork,ashadbeengivenbytheModern-ists.ManyoftheVictoriansagesdrewontheOldTestamentprophets,whereas MüllertriedtowarmhisreaderstoIndiantraditionsaswell.Thepersonaof thesageisdefinedbyhisorientationtowardswisdomandhiswishtoshare ancientsayingsandproverbswithhisreadersandevenfollowers.Müllerisnot theprototypicalVictorian“sage,”asmostofhisworkwas“scientific.”Hedid muchmoretocultivatehisscholarlypersona,bystressingtheimportanceof methodologicallysoundresearchandreasoning.Scholarlyandedifyingwork werenotassharplyseparatedintheVictorianageastheyaresupposedtobe nowadays.AttheChicagoParliamentofWorldReligionsin1893thetworoles werenotyetclearlydifferentiated.41StillMüllerwasawareofthedifference betweenhisscholarlypersonaandhispersona asasage,teacherorreligious helpandcomforttomanyexposedtoliketrials,andstrengthenthosewhosepathnow stretchesbeforethemasasunnyavenue,tomeetthesorrowsthatalmostsurelyawait themaslifeadvances.”

38 JohnHolloway,The Victorian Sage: Studies in Argument(London:MacMillan,1953). 39 F.MaxMüller, Auld Lang Syne,2vols.(London:Longmans&Green,1898-1899). 40 F.MaxMüller,Ramakrishna: His Life and Sayings(London:Longmans,Green,andCo,

1898),v.SeealsoVivekananda’sdiscussionofthisbookletin“Ramakrishna:HisLifeand Sayings,”inThe Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,8vols.(Calcutta:AdvaitaAshra-ma,1973-1979),4:409-421.Cf.ThomasJ.Green,Religion for a Secular Age. Max Müller,

Swami Vivekananda and Vedānta(Farnham:Ashgate,2016).

41 ArieL.Molendijk,“TheFirstConferencesontheHistoryofReligions:ReligiousDialogue versusScholarlyStudy,”NTT: Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 72(2018),211-224. InthisarticleIdiscussthedifferentiationbetweenscholarsofreligionandthoseinterested inreligiousunderstandinganddialoguebyanalyzingthedivergenceoftheirrespectivemi-lieu–i.e.conferences.Cf.ArieL.Molendijk,“‘ToUniteReligionagainstallIrreligion’:The 1893WorldParliamentofReligions,”Journal for the History of Modern Theology18(2011),228-50.

expert,buttheycouldalsobecloselyrelated,ashissuccessasaspeaker,for instance,dependedonaminglingofthetwo.Hislecturesprovidednotonly knowledge,butwisdom. ThetensionherecanbeexplainedbythefactthatMüllerwasdeeplycon-vincedthatscientificworkwouldandshouldhavepracticalconsequences. Thisismostevidentinthe“science”(thewordisusedtostresshowrigidand trustworthythenewendeavouris)ofreligion.Themostwell-knownquotation hereisprobablythefollowingone:“TheScienceofReligionmaybethelastof thescienceswhichmanisdestinedtoelaborate;butwhenitiselaborated,it willchangetheaspectoftheworld,andgiveanewlifetoChristianityitself.”42 Müllersawthetracingoftheoriginsofreligiousthoughtasoneofthemost fascinatingendeavoursofscience.“Science”isdefinedherepredominantlyby thecomparativeorhistoricalmethod–termsthatareusedinterchangeablyby Müller.43Itisstressedthatrealresearchisbynomeansatheoreticalendeav-ourandhasnothingtodowithHegelianlawsofthoughtorComtianepochs.44 Thistypeofinvestigationhastobedonein“inabold,butscholarlike,careful, andreverentspirit.”45Theseformulationsstemfrom1873andshowMüller’s undiminishedexcitementaboutwhatwastobeachieved.Italsobetraysthe tensionbetweenboldandcareful,scholarlyandreverent.Hypothesesabout historical developments have to be kept in check by textual evidence and scholarsshouldtreattheseancienttextsrespectfully.Intheseandsimilarfor-mulationsMüllerwentbeyondtheidealsofmanyofhisOrientalcolleagues whofocusedontextsanddidnotaimatpresentingamorewide-ranginghis-toryofreligions–letaloneanormativeidealofwhatreligionreallyisabout. Certainlytheydidnotpublishextensivevolumesonthesetopics. ThepreliminaryconclusionmustbethatMüllernotonlyrepresentedvari- ouspersonae,whichistobeexpected(hewasalsoafather),but–morespe-cifically–variousprofessionalpersonae.Thesearenotneatlyseparatedfrom eachotherbutarerelatedtooneanother.Sometimes,butnotalways,they clearlyinterferewitheachother.IntheThoughts on Life and Religion itisclear-lythesagewhoisspeaking,whereasinotherpublicationsthevoiceofthe scholarisdominant.Ofcourse,itispossibletoclearlydistinguishbetween idealtypesofpersonae,asIhavetriedtodoabove,butstillthisisnotsufficient toanalysethewaythepersonaofthe“scholar”forinstanceisqualifiedbythat ofthe“sage.”Mostofthetimestheydon’thavethesameweight.Onecould 42 Müller,Chips,vol.1,xix-xx.

43 Molendijk,Friedrich Max Müller,ch.4. 44 Müller,Chips,vol.1,ix.

even argue against my tentative analysis above that the scholar who also presentsaworldviewisaspecialtypeofthescholarlypersona.Dowereally needthemodelofthe“sage,”whichhasatleastanachronisticaspects?Inmy ownperceptionMüller’sperformancehassomanyaspectsofthe“sage,”thatit makessensetointroduceithere.LookingatMüller’smagnificentcareer,span-ningsuchalongtimeandsomanyfieldsofresearchandinterests,wecould evokeothermodelsandpersonaeaswell. Nodoubtrelatedhereisthepersona ofthe“publicintellectual”–aterm thatbecamecommonlyusedwiththeDreyfusaffairinthelatenineteenthcen-tury46–whooffersorientationforabroaderpublic.Asfarashispresencein themediaisconcerned,MaxMüllerwasdoubtlessoneofthegreatVictorian intellectualsofhistime.HisarticlescouldbefoundinjournalsalloverEurope andtheUnitedStates,andhespoketoaudiencesonalargerangeoftopics,not onlyinthefieldshewasmostwell-knownfor,butalsoonthemessuchas“how towork?”and“whyIamnotanagnostic.”Hewasaregularcontributortothe London Times,histripsandlecturetourswerecoveredbytheinternational media,andhealsopresentedhisviewsoneducational,social,andpoliticalis-sues.HispubliccorrespondencewiththefamousGermanhistorianandNobel PrizewinnerTheodorMommsenontheBoerWarstirredalotofattention.47

Whereasthepersona ofthesage isrelatedtowisdomandindividualmoral-ity,thepersonaofthepublicintellectual suggestsamorefuture-oriented,ra-tionalandcriticalanalysisofissuesofpublicconcern.Isthe“intellectual”the “secularized” counterpart of the “sage”? The sage having access to ancient, especiallyreligious,traditions;theintellectualusinghisknowledgeandcogni- tivepowerstocometogripswithpoliticalandsocietalissues?Thesedelibera-tions show how various intellectual personae are part of a larger semantic field,whichcallsforreflectionbeyondthescholarlypersona.Thefirstlessonis thatthescholarlypersona hastobeunderstoodinafieldofrelatedconcepts, modelsandpersonae.Thesecond–related–lessonisthatthatconceptual historiesofisolatedpersonae(thesage,theintellectual)areinsufficient,ascat-egoriesmayoverlapandbecomeconfusedandblurred–inthesensethatthey arenotusedidealtypically,butinterchangeablyinsomecontextsbysomepar-ticipantsandobservers.

46 Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie,ed.J.Ritter,vol.4(Basel:Schwabe,1976),454-458.

47 The Question of Right between England and the Transvaal: Letters by the Right Hon. F. Max Müller with Rejoinders by Professor Theodor

Mommsen(Westminster:ImperialSouthAfri-canAssociation,1900).Cf.VandenBosch,Müller, 170-171andJohannesH.Voigt,“DieAus-einandersetzungzwischenTheodorMommsenundMaxMüllerüberdenBurenkrieg[The DiscussionbetweenMommsenandMaxMüllerabouttheBoerWar],”Geschichte in

3 The Rise of “Big Science” and the Persona of the Entrepreneur

GrandeditorialprojectssuchastheOxford English Dictionary,theMigneedi-tionofthechurchfathers,theMonumenta Germaniae Historica,andtheninth editionoftheEncyclopaedia Britannica(underthesupervisionofthefamous OldTestament scholarWilliam Robertson Smith), are important objects of study.Theysignalledtheemergenceoflarge-scalescholarshipinthehumani-tiesaswellastheimportanceofentrepreneurshipandstaminaofindividual leaders,whoinitiatedandconductedthesecooperativeventureswithgreat personaleffortanddedication.Notalleditorshadthecommercialgeniusof theabbéJacquesPaulMigne,whopublishedaccordingtohisbiographera bookeverytendaysforthirtyyears,48butasolidfinancialbasiswascrucialfor success.Justlikebigindustry,bigscience(Großwissenschaft)needsworking capital.49

Withsomecaution,Müller’seditionsoftheRig-Veda andtheSacred Books

of the

Eastcanbestudiedinthecontextoftheriseof“bigscience.”50Theedi-tionoftheSacred Books of the Eastwasfundedbyboththeprivatemoneyof OxfordUniversityPressandtheIndiaOfficeoftheBritishEmpire.The–often distinguished–scholarswerepaidasmallamountperpage,whichboreno relationtotheirtime-consumingwork.OnlyMülleraseditor-in-chiefreceived asubstantialemolumentfromthePress.Scholarsfromdifferentnationswere recruitedbyMüller,andinthisrespecttheserieswasatokenoftheongoing internationalizationof–Oriental–scholarship.Internationalizationisinmy viewanimportant,butnotinitselfdistinguishing,elementoftheemergence ofbigscience.Thecontributorsallworkedintheirownstudiesorlibrariesand didnotcooperateclosely.Ofcourse,therewereallkindsofrelationships– theymetatconferences,andcorrespondedwitheachother,and,ofcourse, evenmorefrequentlywiththeeditor-in-chief–,buttheydiditallonanindi-vidualbasisanddidnotmeetasateam.Therewasnolocalconcentrationof work,norstaffmemberswhomanagedtheedition.Yettheseriesremaineda collectiveeffortbyaninternationalgroupofscholars,fundedbyextrafinan-cialmeans,andinvolvingasteadyflowofpublications.Intheserespects,the 48 R.HowardBloch,God’s Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular

Commerce of the Abbé Migne(Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress,1994),1.

49 AdolfvonHarnack,“AntrittsredeinderPreußischenAkademiederWissenschaften[In-auguralAddressinthePrussianAcademyofSciences],”inAdolf von Harnack als

Zeitge-nosse,ed.KurtNowak,2vols.(Berlin:WalterdeGruyter,1996),1:976-982,at982.

50 Theclassicalbookonthissubject,DerekJ.deSollaPrice,Little Science, Big Science … and

Beyond

seriesisanimportantstepintheestablishmentofbigscience,whichemerged infullshapearound1900. Thesegrandprojectsrequirednewskillsoftheeditorsinvolved,suchas fundraisingandorganizing(“peoplemanagement”)andconvincingcolleagues toinvesttheirtimeintranslatingtexts.MaxMüller,ofcourse,wasawareofthe factthattheseeditionsrequiredextramoneyandmanpower.Inhisautobiog- raphy,prefaces,anddedicationshehonouredtheinfluentialmenwhopro-videdthefunds.Hewasalsoverymuchawareoftheneedtocooperate.Inhis addresstotheSecondCongressofOrientalists,heldattheRoyalInstitutionin Londonin1874,Müllerhadpointedtothenecessity“tocarryoutgreatworks” byjointeffort(viribus unitis).51Hisorganizationalskillswereacknowledged by his contemporaries, but not without criticism. Müller was said to be “pushful”52andonecolleagueevenspokeofMüller’s“inabilityforrealattach-ment.”“Weallknewthatheonlyvaluedussofaraswecouldbeofusetohim.”53 AllthecreditwenttoMüller,whereas–accordingtosomeofhiscritics–he didonlyasmallpartoftheactualwork.54Anotherappraisal,however,stated that “every page [passed] through his hands for revision before final pub-lication.”55

Hereitisnotmygoaltoassessthese–oftencontrary–judgments,buttosee accordingtowhichstandardsandidealsMüller’seditorialworkhasbeeneval-uated. His “faculty of making others work with him”56 implies a tight-rope walk.Pushingforresultsandcorrectingtheirwork–includingtheEnglishof thenon-nativespeakers–was“oftentakeninbadpartbythetranslator.”57 Müllerhasbeenaccusedofmoreorlessexploitingyoungscholars,inparticu-larhis“assistants,”andclaimingthecreditoftheireditorialworkforhimself.58 51 F.MaxMüller,“Address[totheAryanSection],”inTransactions of the Second Session of

the International Congress of

Orientalists,London,September1874,(Nendeln:KrausRe-print,[1876]1968),177-204.

52 EdmundCraster,History of the Bodleian Library 1845-1945(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1952), 104.

53 Chaudhuri,Scholar Extraordinary, 218,withoutmentioningasource;thesamepassageis quotedinPeterSutcliffe,Oxford University Press: An Informal History(Oxford:Clarendon Press,1978),47andV.H.H.Green,Oxford Common Room: A Study of Lincoln College and

Mark Pattison(London:EdwardArnold,1957),219.K.A.Manley,“MaxMüllerandthe

BodleianSub-Librarianship,1865,”Library History 5(1979),33-47,at34,note4,refersto BodleianLibrary,MSPattison130:MarkPattison’sdiary,7December1860.

54 Schuyler,Jr.,“MaxMuller’sServicetoScience.”

55 N.N.,“AppreciationofMaxMuller,”New York Times(1December1900)andMüller,The

Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Max Müller,2:12.

56 Ibid.

57 Müller,The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Max Müller,2:12. 58 Chaudhuri,Scholar Extraordinary,261.

TheentrepreneurialandsupervisingaspectsofMüller’sworkwereprobably seenasviolatingcollegialstandards.Theautonomyoftheindividualscholar was still highly appreciated. Theodor Mommsen recommended that one shouldfreeHermannOldenberg,oneofthecontributorstotheSacred Books of the East,fromhisLohnschreiberei(thefactthathehastoproduceforhisliv-ing).InthiscontextMommsenspokealsoaboutthebigMüllerianfactory.59 Beingpartofaproductionprocessandbeingcorrectedbytheeditor-in-chief didnotfitthescholarlyidealoftheindependentprofessor.Thisdoesnotalter thefactthatinmanybigprojectsinwhichMommsenhimselfwasalsodeeply involvedlow-paid“assistants”wereneeded.Theemergenceof“bigscience” and“bighumanities”showstheemergenceofanewtypeofscholarasentre-preneurandmanager. 4 Conclusion TheabovecriticismofMüllershowsthatthepersonaofthescholaratthetime impliedanautonomouspositionasfarasone’sownworkwasconcerned.The-odorMommsenurgedFriedrichAlthoff–thehighestrankingofficialinthe PrussianDepartmentofEducation–togiveOldenbergaprofessorshipinGer-many.Anacademicofhisstandingshouldnotbedependentoncontractual workandbefreetodohisownresearch.Freedomandacertaindegreeofinde-pendencewereseenaspreciousgoodsforascholar.EspeciallyinEngland,of course,somescholarshadenoughfinancialmeanstoguaranteetheirindepen-denceandpursuetheircareers.IntheobituaryforhisfriendArthurPenrhyn Stanley,DeanofWestminster,Müllerwrote–withaslighttouchofenvy–that Stanleyneverhadtomakeconcessions,beingfinanciallyindependent.“He hadnottopushandtourgehisclaimshimselforthroughothers,andhethus remainedafreemanthroughlife.”60 ThedegreeofindependenceofaBritishgentlemandiffered,ofcourse,from thatofaGermanprofessor,butbothwereabletopursuetheiracademicinter-ests–notbotheredbytheneedforextraincome.Scholarswerealsoseenas ownersoftheoutcomesoftheirwork.Theycouldtakeadvice,nodoubt,but theydidnotwanttheirpublicationssupervisedandcorrectedbypeers–let aloneeditors-in-chief.Scholarswereideallyseenascolleagues.Thischanged 59 Theodor Mommsen und Friedrich Althoff: Briefwechsel

1882-1903[CorrespondenceMom-msen–Althoff1882-1903],ed.StefanRebenichandGisaFranke(Munich:Oldenburg, 2012),200-201and207,lettersof23January1885and22March1885(“grosseMüllersche Fabrikunternehmen”).IthankBernhardMaier(Tübingen)forthisreference.

toacertainextentwiththeemergenceoflarge-scalescholarshipthatcalledfor morestandardizedprocedures.Thus,theSacred Books of the Eastmarkeda newstageintheemergenceofstructurallyhierarchicalrelationswithinaca-demia.Now“colleagues”hadtobemanaged,andnotonlythoseinsubordinate positionssuchassecretariesandother“assistants.”ItisevidentthatMüller hadtoworkherewithextremecaution,but“topushandtourge”waspartof hispersona asanentrepreneur-scholar.Tillthepresentdaythisisanextreme-lysensitiveissueamongcolleagues–evenwithinmodernuniversitieswhere standardsofoutput,efficiency,andcompetitionprevail. Theflip-sideoftheemergenceofbiggerprojectsthatcouldnotbeunder- takenbyasinglescholarinhisstudywastheneedforcooperationandfund-raising.Manytimes,Müller’scharm,pleasantmanners,hospitality,andeven supportwerementioned.Socialqualities–iftheycanbesummarizedthisway –becamepartoftheidealofthescholar.The“pushingandurging”couldbe experiencedasmanipulationandevenexploitation,especiallybyyoungeras- piringscholarswhoneededmoneyandamentorandhadnotmuchofaposi-tiontonegotiate.Herewecanglimpseasightofthemodernmanager–scholar whohastobeabletoraisefundsandto“persuade”people. Whathasdisappeared–oratleastisnotthatprominentanymore–over thetwentiethcenturyisthecombinationofthepersona of“thescholar”and thatofwhatIhavecalledthesagewhoprovidesmoralguidance.CarlSagan andsomeothersmayhavehadacertainamountofinfluence,butgenerally speakingtheroleofthesageseemstohavebeenreplacedbythatoftheintel-lectualwhocriticallyanalysessocietalandpoliticalissues.Scholarshipassuch hasbecomeatargetofintellectualcriticism.Concomitantly,weseetheriseof alternativeexplanationsoftheworldsuchascreationismandintelligentde- sign,alternativeproceduresofhealing,andevencompeting“science”thatof-fers“counter-evidence”forthe“alleged”processofglobalwarming.Thus,the personaofthescholaristhreatenedbecausetheauthorityoftheprofessional assuchisunderminedinourmediatizedworld. Itistooearlytojumptogeneralconclusionsabouttheusefulnessofthe concept of the scholarly persona.This chapter – just a rough sketch – has shown that it is not always easy to discern between various competing personae.OneofthekeyissueshereishowtolinkcriticismofMüllertohis variouspersona.Somecriticsdetectedmoralflawsinhischaracter,whichare notclearlyrelatedtooneparticularpersona.Othercriticismsweredirectedto hisscholarlyworkingeneral.ConcerningMüller’sownperceptionofhiswork asascholar,itisremarkablehowfiercelyhedefinedhisworkasascience, whichreachesresultswhicharenottheresultofmerespeculationorassocia-tion,whereasolderlinguists,forinstance,inhisviewjustconnectedwordsof

thebasisofsimilaritieswithoutlookingatthedeeperrootsoflanguagefami-lies. MüllerwasanOrientalscholar,alinguist,asage,andapioneeringeditorof abigseries.Dotheserolesallqualifyasapersona?Dotheysupplementeach other,orisitbettertolookathowthesepersonaequalifyeachother?Iwould suggestlookingatfrictions.Inwhichrespectsarescholarscriticized,forin-stance?Hereweoftenseemoraljudgmentsandjudgmentsconcerning(lack of)skillsandpracticedvalues.InthischapterIstumbledonmultiplepersonae suchasthescholar–entrepreneurorthescholar–sage,whichwereconnected, butatthesametimedistinguished,withoutbeingcompletelydifferentiated fromoneanotheratthetime.Theunbiasedscholarcouldstillprovidewisdom tohisaudience.Evenatthetimethisdoublerole(ifitwasadoublerole)could leadtofrictions,andsomecolleaguesofMaxMüllerwerequicktopointout thathispopularsuccesswith“youngladies”actuallydisqualifiedhimasaseri-ousscholar. Bibliography

Alter,StephenG.William Dwight Whitney and the Science of Language.Baltimore,MD: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2005.

Arnold, Matthew. The Letters of Matthew Arnold, 6 vols., edited by Cecil Y. Lang. Charlottesville,VA:UniversityPressofVirginia,1996-2001.

Bloch, R. Howard. God’s Plagiarist: Being an Account of the Fabulous Industry and Irregular Commerce of the Abbé Migne.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1994.

Chaudhuri,NiradC.Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Müller P. C.Delhi:OxfordUniversityPress,1974.

Collini,Stefan,DonaldWinch,andJohnBurrow.That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1983.

Conway, Moncure D. Autobiography: Memories and Experiences of Moncure Daniel Conway,2vols.London:Cassell,1904.

Craster,Edmund.History of the Bodleian Library 1845-1945.Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1952.

Daston, Lorraine and H. Otto Sibum. “Introduction: Scientific Personae and Their Histories.”Science in Context 16(2003):1-8.

deSollaPrice,DerekJ.Little Science, Big Science … and Beyond. NewYork,NY:Columbia Press,[1963]1986.

deSaussure,Ferdinand.Course in General Linguistics.TranslatedbyRoyHarris.Lon-don:Duckworth,1983.

de Saussure, Ferdinand. Writings in General Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2006.

Green, Thomas J. Religion for a Secular Age: Max Müller, Swami Vivekananda and Vedānta.Farnham:Ashgate,2016.

Green,V.H.H.Oxford Common Room: A Study of Lincoln College and Mark Pattison. London:EdwardArnold,1957.

Holloway,John.The Victorian Sage: Studies in Argument.London:MacMillan,1953. Manley,K.A.“MaxMüllerandtheBodleianSub-Librarianship,1865.”Library History 5

(1979):33-47.

Molendijk,ArieL.“‘ToUniteReligionagainstallIrreligion’:The1893WorldParliament ofReligions.”Journal for the History of Modern Theology18(2011):228-250.

Molendijk, Arie L. Friedrich Max Müller and the Sacred Books of the East. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2016.

Molendijk, Arie L. “The First Conferences on the History of Religions: Religious DialogueversusScholarlyStudy.”NTT: Journal for Theology and the Study of Religion 72(2018):211-224.

Müller,F.Max.“Buddhism.”InMüller,Chips from a German Workshop,vol.1,182-231. London:Longmans,Green&Co,1867.

Müller,F.Max.Introduction to the Science of Religion.London:Longmans,Green&Co, 1873.

Müller,F.Max.Lectures on the Science of Language,2vols.,7thed.London:Longmans, Green&Co,1873.

Müller,F.Max.Biographical Essays.London:Longmans,Green&Co,1884.

Müller,F.Max.Natural Religion, GiffordLecturesGlasgow1888.London:Longmans, Green,andCo,1889.

Müller,F.Max.Ramakrishna: His Life and Sayings.London:Longmans,Green,andCo, 1898.

Müller,F.Max. Auld Lang Syne,2vols.London:Longmans&Green,1898-1899. Müller,F.Max.The Question of Right between England and the Transvaal: Letters by the

Right Hon. F. Max Müller with Rejoinders by Professor Theodor Mommsen, West-minster:ImperialSouthAfricanAssociation,1900

Müller,F.Max.My Autobiography: A Fragment.London:Longmans,Green,andCo, 1901.

Müller,F.Max.The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Max Müller,2vols.,edited by[GeorginaMüller].London:Longmans,Green,andCo,1902.

Müller,F.Max.Thoughts on Life and Religion,editedby[GeorginaMüller].London: ArchibaldConstableandCompany,1906.

Müller,F.Max.“Address[totheAryanSection].”InTransactions of the Second Session of the International Congress of Orientalists, London, September 1874. Nendeln: KrausReprint,[1876]1968.

N.N.“Prof.MaxMuellerDead.”New York Times(29October1900). N.N.“MaxMueller.”New York Times(3November1900).

N.N.“AppreciationofMaxMuller.”New York Times(1December1900).

Paul,Herman.“WhatIsaScholarlyPersona?TenThesesonVirtues,Skills,andDesires.” History and Theory53(2014):348-371.

Paul,Herman.“TheVirtuesandVicesofAlbertNaudé:TowardaHistoryofScholarly Personae.”History of Humanities1(2016),327-338.

Planck,Max.Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers (1948).TranslatedbyF.Gaynor. NewYork,NY:PhilosophicalLibrary,1950.

Rebenich, Stefan and Gisa Franke, eds. Theodor Mommsen und Friedrich Althoff: Briefwechsel 1882-1903.Munich:Oldenburg,2012.

Ritter,J.,ed.Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie,vol.4.Basel:Schwabe,1976. Schuyler,Jr.,Montgomery.“MaxMuller’sServicetoScience.”New York

Times(3Novem-ber1900).

Sutcliffe,Peter.Oxford University Press: An Informal History.Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1978.

ThomasA.Sebeok,ed.Portraits of Linguists: A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746-1963,2vols.Westport:GreenwoodPress,[1966]1976. van den Bosch, Lourens P. Friedrich Max Müller: A Life Devoted to the Humanities.

Leiden:Brill,2002.

vanderVeer,Peter.Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001.

Vivekananda,Swami.“Ramakrishna:HisLifeandSayings.”InThe Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda,8vols.,4:409-421.Calcutta:AdvaitaAshrama,1973-1979. vonHarnack,Adolf.“AntrittsredeinderPreußischenAkademiederWissenschaften.”

InAdolf von Harnack als Zeitgenosse,editedbyKurtNowak,2vols,1:976-982.Berlin: WalterdeGruyter,1996.

Voigt,JohannesH.“DieAuseinandersetzungzwischenTheodorMommsenundMax MüllerüberdenBurenkrieg.”Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 17(1966), 65-77.