Heathen Hindoo Hindu American representations of

India 1721 1893 1st Edition Michael J. Altman

pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/heathen-hindoo-hindu-american-representations-of-
india-1721-1893-1st-edition-michael-j-altman/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (43 reviews) ✓ 174 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Heathen Hindoo Hindu American representations of India 1721
1893 1st Edition Michael J. Altman pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Gita Press and the Making of Hindu India Akshaya Mukul

American National Security Michael J. Meese

The Rhetoric of Hindu India Language and Urban Nationalism

1st Edition Manisha Basu

Reinventing India Liberalization Hindu Nationalism and

Popular Democracy Corbridge
The Progressives Activism and Reform in American Society
1893 1917 1st Edition Karen Pastorello

Hindu nationalism in India ideology and politics Bhuwan

Kumar Jha

Ordinary People Extraordinary Violence Naxalites and Hindu

Extremists in India 1st Edition Chitralekha

The American Century and Beyond: U.S. Foreign Relations,

1893-2014 George C. Herring

Climate Change Fictions: Representations of Global Warming

in American Literature 1st Edition Antonia Mehnert
i

Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu

ii
iii

Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu

A M ER IC AN R EPR E S E NT A TI ONS OF I ND IA , 1721–​1 893

Michael J. Altman

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2017

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​065492–​4

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
v

For Emily, my partner in everything.

vi
vi

Contents

Acknowledgments ix
Preface xi
Prologue xv

1. Heathens and Hindoos in Early America 1

2. Missionaries, Unitarians, and Raja Rammohun Roy 27

3. Hindoo Religion in American National Culture 48

4. Transcendentalism, Brahmanism, and Universal Religion 74

5. The Theosophical Quest for Occult Power 98

6. Putting the “Religions” in the World’s Parliament of Religions 120

Epilogue 137

Notes 145
Index 169

vii
vi
ix

Acknowledgments

This book exists because of a number of people besides me. I may have written
the book, but they made it possible.
One reason this book exists is the influence of my parents. There is an image in
my mind of my father eating lunch. He has a bowl of soup, a radio playing some sort
of either sports or political talk, and a book propped up in front of him. He leans
forward over the bowl, into the pages of the book, as steam floats up. I think he was
reading Agatha Christie. Dad left books everywhere in our house. Piles of them. He
and my mother told me that I could write a book. Without them I would not have
known that writing a book was a thing one could do in the world.
Another reason this book exists is the support of the Department of Religious
Studies at the College of Charleston. I am thankful to Zeff Bjerken, Elijah Siegler,
Lee Irwin, and John Huddlestun for being excellent teachers and mentors. It was
in Zeff ’s seminar on religion after 9/​11 where I first read Orientalism. Without that
department I would not have known that religious studies was a thing one could
study in the world.
Another reason this book exists is that Leela Prasad took the time to be patient
with me while I was at Duke University and helped me figure out how I could bridge
my interest in colonial India and religion in America. Her generosity of spirit and
encouragement as I began to dig into the sources that are now in this book made
this whole thing possible. The two years I spent at Duke were amazing because of
the scholarly community between the various universities in the area. I am thankful
ix
x

x Acknowledgments
to Jason Bivins, Grant Wacker, and Tom Tweed for all of the guidance they gave me
as a young master’s student with no idea what he was doing. I am especially thankful
to Tom who first mentioned that I should go look and see what nineteenth-​century
magazines might say about India. I am also thankful to the Ph.D. students I met
at Duke and the University of North Carolina, who have now become colleagues
and friends. I’m especially grateful to Angela Tarango, Seth Dowland, Kate Bowler,
Mandy McMichael, and Elesha Coffman, who took the time to humor my ridicu-
lous arguments over lunch in the graduate lounge.
Another reason this book exists is that Bobbi Patterson is the most joyful person
in the world. The moment I stepped foot onto the campus at Emory University, she
made me feel like it was home. The Graduate Division of Religion at Emory was an
amazing place to grow into a scholar, and every student and faculty member of the
American Religious Cultures track made it feel like a family. I’m especially grate-
ful to Ben Brazil, Dennis LoRusso, Kenny Smith, and Samira Mehta for humoring
my ridiculous arguments in seminars and in the graduate lounge. At Emory, Brooks
Holifield and Russ Richey taught me to think like a historian. Paul Courtright led
me through the history of colonial India. Through it all, Gary Laderman was the
Dude. Gary always gave me enough rope to do whatever I wanted, but he always
cut me down before I tied myself up in a tree. He is my teacher, my mentor, and my
friend. Thanks, Dude.
Another reason this book exists is that Steven Ramey was chairing a search com-
mittee and recommended that the Department of Religious Studies at the University
of Alabama hire me as a full-​time instructor. A year later they hired me as an assis-
tant professor. I am so proud to be a part of this department. I am thankful to have
a department chair as forward thinking and supportive as Russell McCutcheon. His
commitment to developing the other junior faculty in our department is a model for
senior scholars everywhere. I am grateful to have amazing colleagues in the depart-
ment who genuinely appreciate each other and work for a common goal. I am hum-
bled by our outstanding students, who challenge me in the classroom and humor my
ridiculous arguments in the student lounge.
This book also exists because of my family. My three boys have grown up with
this book. Steinichen, my oldest, was born within days of me finishing the master’s
thesis that became this book. While I was at Emory, Ollister was born. Then a few
days before my dissertation defense, Gideon was born. In a very real way, this book
is theirs. But don’t worry, boys, you don’t have to read it.
I discovered religious studies at the College of Charleston. I also fell in love. Emily
Steinichen Altman has been my partner through all of this. She never doubted me,
even when I doubted myself. She is the love of my life and my best friend. This book
would not be here without her. A true acknowledgment of my gratitude to her
would require a sky-​writer, fireworks, and an Elton John song.
xi

There are Hindus, but there is no Hinduism.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith

Preface

In its first incarnation, this book was a project about Hinduism in nineteenth-​
century America. As I started out, I knew what Hinduism was—​it was a religious
tradition, it was something people taught courses like “Introduction to Hinduism”
about (I was even a teaching assistant for such a course). So, I went to three
nineteenth-​century magazines and began to hunt for Hinduism. The thing was,
I never really found “Hinduism.” Instead I found descriptions of “heathens,” transla-
tions of Sanskrit texts, “Hindoos,” “Gentoos,” “Brahmins,” “the Vedam,” “Vishnoo,”
“Kreeshna,” “widow burning,” “caste,” and all sorts of other representations, images,
texts, descriptions, and narratives. Nonetheless, in its initial form, I wrote about all of
these things as “Hinduism in nineteenth-​century America.” I had found Hinduism
in a period long before most American religious historians thought there was such a
thing in American culture. Original contribution to the field made.
After that initial foray into the sources from the period, I realized that there was
a bigger story to tell than merely the discovery of some interesting representations
of “Hinduism” in three magazines. So, I decided to expand my archive and cover as
much as I could from the earliest references all the way up to the World’s Parliament
of Religions. As I expanded my archive, it became clear that I was not finding
“Hinduism” in these sources. I was finding that whole list of terms noted earlier and
more. But surely all these terms were just a variety of ways to describe and reference
the same thing, right? If it was not “Hinduism,” then what was it? So, I coined a
new term: Hindu religion. In this new and expanded version of the project, I used
“Hindu religion” to name the single object that I thought all of these texts, terms,
authors, and representations described.

xi
xi

xii Preface
And then I had a wonderfully terrible realization. My “Hindu religion” was
no different from the nineteenth-​century author’s “religion of the Hindoos” or
“Brahmanism” or “heathenism.” Indeed, “Hindu religion” did not name a single
object to which all of these other terms referred. Instead, it was simply another term
in the long list of terms that Americans like me had used to describe something
about the people of India and their practices and beliefs. I had written myself into
the very history I was trying to analyze.
A second realization followed. The way to approach these sources was to take their
own language seriously and not to assume that I knew what they were really talking
about. That is, I should not assume that “Brahmanism,” “religion of the Hindoos,”
“heathenism,” and, eventually, “Hinduism” all referred to the same object. These
were not various (mis)representations of Hinduism, the religious tradition we all
know. Nor were these steps in a developmental knowledge of this one thing we now
know better, called Hinduism. Each of them was its own representation. Yes, they
referred to one another and inflected one another, but they also served their own
social, cultural, and political purposes. “Brahmanism” was not “Hindoo religion,”
which was not “heathenism,” which was not “Hinduism.” Neither was one of them
the “right” representation and the others “wrong.” My task, then, was not to find
“Hinduism” in nineteenth-​century America, nor was it to trace the development of
American representations of “Hindu religions” from “heathenism” to “Hinduism.”
My task was to analyze the variety of ways in which Americans represented religion
in India and pay particular attention to how subjects constructed each of these rep-
resentations and to what ends they put them. That is what I have done in this book.1
To accomplish that task, I have stuck close to the language of the texts and
authors in my analysis. Where authors have discussed “Hindoo religion,” I have
analyzed Hindoo religion. Where they have described “Brahmanism,” I have ana-
lyzed Brahmanism. The double-​O “Hindoo” in my prose may be striking to some
readers. That moment of shock is important because it reminds readers that when
a nineteenth-​century author writes about the Hindoo, he or she is not necessar-
ily writing about what might today be identified as “Hinduism.” Noah Webster’s
dictionary entries for “Hindoo” and “Hindooism” during the period revealed
the ambiguous nature of these terms. In 1828 the only entry is for “HIN’DOO,
n. An aboriginal of Hindoostan, or Hindostan.” By 1849 the entry is extended to
“HIN’DOO-​ISM, HIN’DU-​ISM, n. The doctrines and rites of the Hindoos; the
system of religious principles among the Hindoos.” That same definition is repeated
in the 1864 edition.2 Just what those “doctrines and rites” were and what that system
was remained wide open. Dictionaries reflect the common usage of a word. In com-
mon usage throughout the nineteenth century, “Hindoo” and “Hindooism” were
empty terms referring to “those people in India” and “whatever it is those people in
xi

Preface xiii
India are doing.” The variety of ways Americans filled these empty terms is the sub-
ject of this book. So, though these terms do not get so-​called scare quotes through-
out this book, the reader is asked to read with scare quotes at hand.
It is important to note from the outset that I am not arguing that Hinduism is
merely a construction. Nor am I arguing that there is no such thing as Hinduism
really. The temples Indian-​Americans have built across the United States testify to
the fact that Hinduism is very real and very much a part of the American religious
landscape. Rather, my argument in this book is about the construction of a series
of categories that Americans used to understand religion in India, to understand
themselves, and to argue about the definition of religion in their nation and cul-
ture. Hindu Americans who read this book will most likely not recognize them-
selves in the representations of Indian religion they find in these nineteenth-​century
American sources. Nor should they. But I hope Hindu Americans will find a valuable
history of how the categories of heathen, Hindoo, and Hindu emerged in American
culture and shaped American understandings of South Asia.
xvi
xv

We can trace the path of Hindu religious movements more precisely than that of the words;
the movements entered through Chicago.
Wendy Doniger, The Hindus

Prologue

On September 11, 1893, a Bengali monk stood before a crowd of Americans

inside the Hall of Columbus in Chicago at the World’s Parliament of Religions.
He wore a saffron robe and turban. Observers described him as “a large, well-​built
man, with superb carriage of the Hindustanis.” He was “the popular Hindoo monk
who looks so much like McCullough’s Othello,” Swami Vivekananda. Vivekananda
addressed his “sisters and brothers of America” to a rousing applause that lasted sev-
eral minutes.3 When he spoke, the audience heard a “perfect English masterpiece.”
As one audience member wrote:

His personality dominant, magnetic; his voice, rich as a bronze bell; the con-
trolled fervor of his feeling; the beauty of his message to the Western world
he was facing for the first time—​these combined to give us a rare and perfect
moment of supreme emotion. It was human eloquence at its highest pitch.4

His opening address attracted fans. “Scores of women” walked over their benches
to get near the young swami afterward. A few days later, Vivekananda delivered a
lecture titled “Hinduism as a Religion.” As one of his Western disciples described it,
“in this stunning talk Swamiji gave coherence and unity to the bewildering number
of sects and beliefs that through untold ages have gathered and flowered under the
name Hinduism.”5 As religious studies scholar Vasudha Narayanan notes, “most peo-
ple trace the history of Hinduism in America to this famous address.”6 Following the
Parliament, Vivekananda toured the country, speaking about Vedanta philosophy

xv
xvi

xvi Prologue
and yoga. He founded the Vedanta Society, which built the first Hindu temple in
America. He has been remembered as “a model of success from an earlier generation,
representing the Indian religious teacher who aspires to come to the United States
to proclaim Hinduism.”7
Most stories of Hinduism in the United States begin with Vivekananda. In some
cases, religious historians will begin with a brief Transcendentalist and Theosophist
prologue. Such narratives begin by noting that Ralph Waldo Emerson, Helena
Blavatsky, and other American religious liberals read and were influenced by Indian
texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. Nonetheless, in most narratives the arrival of
Vivekananda signaled the real beginning of Hinduism in America. As the story goes,
other gurus, such as Yogananda, followed Vivekananda and spread yoga and med-
itation throughout America before World War II. Then, in 1965, changes in immi-
gration laws opened up the United States to South Asian immigrants who came
to America, built temples, societies, and institutions, and took their place in the
religiously plural American society. Following this narrative, studies of Hinduism in
the United States have focused on the twentieth century, immigrant Hinduism, new
religious movements, and gurus.8 These studies render Hinduism as an object car-
ried to the United States by South Asian teachers, gurus, and immigrants. They are
stories of ever expanding progress, increase in numbers and knowledge, and greater
and greater pluralism.9
There are serious problems with these accounts of “Hinduism in America.” First,
such narratives treat Hinduism as if it were a stable object that moves from one
place to another, rather than an ever-​shifting discourse. Scholars use the arrival of
immigrants after 1965 as a metaphor to explain the American encounter with Indian
religion before 1965. For example, sociologist Prema A. Kurien has described how
“Hinduism arrived in the United States long before Hindu immigrants did.”10 She
cited travelogues, missionary accounts, and translations of “Hindu scriptures” as
leading to the arrival of Hinduism in America. Religious studies scholar Vasudha
Narayanan has split “Hinduism in the United States” between “the history of ideas
and practices that are derived from Hindu traditions” and “the history of Hindus in
this country.” She further divides the history between the era before large-​scale South
Asian immigration began in 1965 and the era afterward. During the nineteenth cen-
tury, “ideas and practices originating in Hinduism came at a time when Hindus were
not allowed into the country.”11 Narayanan and Kurien read the immigrant pattern
back onto the movement of ideas. Just as people who identified as “Hindu” came to
America after 1965, they argue, so too did ideas identified as “Hinduism” or “Hindu
traditions” migrate in the earlier period.
In these narratives, “Hinduism” moves like a giant wooden box carried across the
oceans from India to America. But, as this book argues, there was no solid, singular,
xvi

Prologue xvii
unified Hinduism to ship. There was no box. Rather, pieces of driftwood—​a trans-
lation of the Bhagavd Gita here, a missionary report there, an image of Krishna
taken from Calcutta—​floated along a triangular network between Britain, North
America, and India. Americans fashioned a variety of representations, images, and
ideas out of these fragments, and they labeled them by a variety of terms: Hindoo,
Hindoo religion, Brahmanism, heathenism, and on and on.
These studies also fail to account for the full history of American encounters with
religion in India. Though they do describe the arrival of Hinduism before 1965,
the Transcedentalist-​Theosophist-​Vivekananda-​1965 history misses American dis-
courses about the people and religions of India that begin in the late eighteenth
century. These accounts ignore a larger history of American interest in India by
assuming that Hinduism is made of certain “ideas or practices,” “Hindu traditions,”
or scriptures. Thus, Cotton Mather’s comparison between the “heathens” of Malabar
and the “heathen” natives of Martha’s Vineyard, or missionary reports about “the
Juggernaut,” have not been included in the history of “Hinduism in America.” These
representations do not match the model of Hinduism that scholars have been look-
ing for. Scholars have defined Hinduism and then have gone back to look for it in
the archive.
Religious historian Stephen Prothero has attempted to account for the full vari-
ety of American encounters with India in some of his work. Prothero has repeat-
edly gathered these disparate representations of and encounters with Indian religion
under the term “Hinduism.” Yet, this is not the term found in the historical archive.
Prothero has argued that “of all the religions of Asia, Hinduism has the longest his-
tory in the United States” and wrote about the “Hindu tradition.” He took every
reference to, representation of, or encounter with “Hindoos,” “Gentoos,” “heathens,”
or “pagans” in India that he found and folded them into “Hinduism.”12 Across a
handful of articles, Prothero’s work on Hinduism in America reflects his belief
that Hinduism is a stable world religion. Whether they knew it or not, according
to Prothero, Americans who read or wrote about the religion of the Hindoos were
really writing about Hinduism.
These various problematic and incomplete narratives of Hinduism in the United
States share an assumption about the nature of Hinduism itself. These studies treat
Hinduism as a stable religion with some sort of essential characteristic or list of traits
that define it. Yet, “Hinduism” is a fraught term in religious studies. Scholars con-
tinue to struggle with a definition for Hinduism.13 Is it a unified religion? A civili-
zation containing multiple religious traditions? A nineteenth-​century construct?
If it was constructed, then by whom? For some scholars, Hinduism did not exist
prior to the British colonization of India. As historian of religions Richard King
has argued, “Hinduism,” as a unified and systematic religion, emerged during the
xvi

xviii Prologue
nineteenth century as Western Orientalists and South Asians encountered one
another in colonial India. As he so bluntly puts it, “the notion of ‘Hinduism’ is
itself a Western-​inspired abstraction, which until the nineteenth century bore little
or no resemblance to the diversity of Indian religious belief and practice.”14 British
colonial power in India constructed “Hinduism” by locating the core of Indian reli-
gion in Sanskrit texts and defining Indian religion according to Judeo-​Christian
assumptions. King concluded that “it remains an anachronism to project the notion
of ‘Hinduism’ as it is commonly understood into pre-​colonial Indian history” and
that before the colonial period there is no “religion called ‘Hinduism’ that might be
taken to represent the belief system of the Hindu people.”15
The so-​called constructivist argument has been rejected by scholars who see a uni-
fied religion of the Hindus in the pre-​colonial archive. David N. Lorenzen has distin-
guished “the English word itself ” from “a single religious community.” Lorenzen has
argued that “the evidence suggests that a Hindu religion theologically and devotion-
ally grounded in texts such as the Bhagavad-​Gita, the Puranas, and philosophical
commentaries on the six darśanas gradually acquired a much sharper self-​conscious
identity through the rivalry between Muslims and Hindus in the period between
1200 and 1500 and was firmly established long before 1800.”16 Andrew J. Nicholson
has most recently rehashed and extended this argument.17 In the introduction to
the Hinduism volume of the recent Norton Anthology of World Religions, Wendy
Dongier offered a “cluster” definition for Hinduism:

The religion commonly known as Hinduism has existed from at least 1500
B.C.E. (if one begins with the earliest text, the Rig Veda) or even perhaps
2500 B.C.E. (if one includes the Indus Valley Civilization, from which we
have rich archeological evidence but not deciphered texts) to the present.
And it has thrived over a wide geographical area, enriched by many dif-
ferent language groups and types of cultures. So wide is this span of time
and space, and so diverse the ideas and myths and rituals and images that
it encompasses, that some scholars resist calling it a single religion. But the
widespread scholarly convention of gathering together the many forms of
these ideas and myths and rituals and calling them “Hinduism” is supported
by the intertextual tradition of the Hindus themselves, who tie the earli-
est texts to the latest in an unbroken chain (what they call a param-​para,
“from one to the other”) and distinguish themselves from other religions
(Buddhism, Islam, Christianity) by various terms, including, for the past
four hundred years, “Hinduism.” In that spirit, the present anthology brings
together texts from the widest reaches of time and space under the umbrella
term “Hinduism.”18
xi

Prologue xix
For these scholars, generally textualists of South Asia, something—​be it philosophy,
identity contra Muslims, or a set of texts—​unified Hindus in India prior to the arri-
val of the East India Company.
Taken at face value, these appeared to be contradictory and opposite sides of the
argument about the history of Hinduism. Religious historian Brian Pennington
outlined the debate in a clear “on the one hand, on the other hand” style:

On one side of the debate over the appropriateness or utility of the term
“Hinduism” are the constructionists, those who claim that in the scholarly
practice the category Hinduism vacuums up a miscellany of Indic traditions,
ideas, and communities that, at their core, have so little in common that their
collective identification under this umbrella is at best misleading and at worst
an exercise in ideological subterfuge… . On the other side of the issues echo
a varity of voices that insist that, however, diffuse, variegated, multivalent,
and internally contested, “Hinduism,” as an analytic category and descriptive
label is both meaningful and reasonably true to observed social and historical
realities.19

It is a matter of constructivist versus correspondence definitions: Richard King’s

nineteenth-​ century construction versus Wendy Doniger’s ancient pan-​ Indian
Hinduism. But, these two definitions actually have a lot in common. They are both
origin narratives.
At first blush, King and the other constructivists appeared to offer a radical depar-
ture from their colleagues who argued for a unified and ancient religion called
Hinduism. They were deconstructing Hinduism, after all—​except that they did not
deconstruct Hinduism, they simply moved the origin story to a later date. A reli-
gion called Hinduism still existed; it was just not as old as some would argue. Rather
than originating in 2500 b.c.e., as Doniger argued, it began in the colonial period.
Furthermore, even though critics labeled him a “constructivist,” a latent essentialism
snuck into King’s definition of Hinduism. Even though Hinduism was constructed
in the colonial period, he still delinated between “accurate” and “inaccurate” read-
ings of Indian texts. For example, he made a point to highlight how American writer
Theos Bernard’s description of the darśanas, or Indian schools of philosophy, was
“historically inaccurate, as even a cursory examination of the philosophical texts of
each school will demonstrate.”20 Hinduism was a construction, but be sure you get it
right. So, while they disagree about the date of origin, both the constructivists and
the unifiers agreed that there was a “correct” or “accurate” Hinduism.
These scholars have argued over how and when Hinduism came into being.
Whence this object called Hinduism? But I want to pursue a different question,
x

xx Prologue
one that does not approach Hinduism as a given object—​as that box that sailed
to America. As Will Sweetman has argued, “ ‘Hinduism’ has no ontological status,
it is not an entity. It is rather a tool of analysis.”21 So how did this tool of analy-
sis end up in America? What made this sort of analysis thinkable? In his study of
“the Other” in Western anthropology, Bernard McGrane described how he was “not
interested in the fact and nature of their existence, but I’m very much interested
in the fact and nature of their conceivability.”22 Rather than asking how Hinduism
arrived in America, I want to know how Hinduism became conceivable in America.
That is, how is it possible for anyone to speak of “Hinduism” at any point in time?
What makes it thinkable? Instead of finding its origin, I want to trace its emergence.
“Emergence is always produced through a particular stage of forces,” and an analysis
of emergence “must delineate this interaction, the struggle these forces wage against
each other or against adverse circumstances.”23 So, what forces and interactions pro-
duced Hinduism in specific times and places? The question of emergence or con-
ceivability demands that the scholar account for the forces and circumstances that
made the idea of “Hinduism” thinkable.
Asking how Hinduism became conceivable requires grounding the question in
a specific time and place, because the answer will change accordingly. What made
Hinduism conceivable in colonial Bengal? What made Hinduism conceivable in
London? And what made Hinduism conceivable in the United States? The ques-
tion of conceivability is richer, deeper, and more interesting than a simple claim that
“Hinduism is a construction.” “Hinduism is a construction” is an argument about
origins. The question of conceivability, of emergence, is genealogical. “Genealogy”
as a method has a variety of definitions and brands: Nietzsche’s genealogy, Foucault’s
genealogy, Deluze’s genealogy, Asad’s genealogy, and so on. For my purposes, geneal-
ogy means an attention to the powers, identities, forces, constraints, agents, and dis-
courses that form a particular category. It means paying attention to the connection
between categories, the ways they overlap, include, and exclude one another. It traces
how the formation of one category draws on the others and produces yet more.24
This study is genealogical insofar as it analyzes a series of sites that produced
representations of religion in India and led to the formation of “Hinduism, the
world religion from India” in American culture and thought. Genealogy “opposes
itself to the search for origins.”25 This genealogy of Hinduism in America does not
search for the origin—​when it arrived or when it was constructed—​but, rather, it
isolates various and disparate sites of emergence and the “numberless beginnings.”
A number of diverse representations, encounters, and images of religion in India
emerged in American culture before 1893. They did not form a discrete evolution
or chain of thought from one to the other. Heathens did not lead to Hindoos and
xxi

Prologue xxi
then to Hindus and then to Hinduism. When Vivekananda walked on stage in
1893, “Hinduism” was not the culmination of these earlier representations. Rather,
Hinduism as a world religion emerged in the midst of various representations of
religion. They made Hinduism conceivable, but they were not its direct antecedents.
As a genealogy of Hinduism in American culture, this book does not trace a direct
history from “heathenism” to “Hinduism.” Rather, I analyze different examples of
how Americans represented religion in India. I call these representations of “religion
in India” not because I think they are necessarily representations of “religion” but
because the sources themselves categorize them as such. That is, they are “religion”
insofar as the sources and writers claim they are. I then trace connections between
the representations and examine the forces, arguments, conflicts, and identities at
play in each representation. Americans wrote a lot about India in the nineteenth
century, and a complete account of all the representations of religion in India would
be impossible. I have chosen to focus on representations that share connections with
each other or with movements and events that historians regard as the major streams
of American religious history. I also chose representations that were widely circu-
lated or enduring. Nearly all of the sources for this book came from published works
and periodicals. At one level, the decision of what to include was my own arbitrary
one. At another level, the narratives of American religious history currently domi-
nating the field dictated it. Thus, I include evangelical Christians, liberal religionists,
metaphysicals, and the World’s Parliament of Religions. The result of these deci-
sions is a study of white people who lived mostly in the northeastern United States.
I hope further work will open up how non-​white Americans imagined India and
represented Indian religion.
All of the representations discussed in this book emerged in American culture
through debates about the category “religion.” As the following chapters will show,
Americans deployed representations of religion in India in their arguments about
religion in America. In some cases “the religion of the Hindoos” was the “heathen-
ism” or “superstition” that marked the boundary of “true religion.” In other cases,
“Brahmanism” provided the contemplative side of religion necessary to form a
Universal Religion. For some Americans, India was the land of esoteric religious
power. For others, India provided an example of brown heathen despotism, in con-
trast to white Christian democracy in America. Throughout the nineteenth century,
India provided a useful foil for Americans as they debated the contours of religion.
When Americans talked about religion in India, they were not really talking
about religion in India. They were talking about themselves. So, I have focused my
analysis on the ways these representations of religion in India functioned as argu-
ments about what it meant to be “American.” As these representations show, white
xxi

xxii Prologue
Protestant Americans used India as a “sort of surrogate and even underground self,”
as Edward Said called it, to make sense of their own conflicts and differences.26 Each
of these representations, then, revealed more about the Americans involved then it
did anything about people in India. One way to argue about being American was to
argue about heathens, Hindoos, and Hindus.
1

1 Heathens and Hindoos in Early America

Cotton Mather believed in a connection between America and Asia.
He believed that the Native Americans had arrived on the continent from Asia
sometime after the biblical flood. He also believed in a world with Christian
Europe at its center and the heathen lands of the East Indies and West Indies on
the outskirts. Mather’s 1721 India Christiana reflected the connections he saw
between the East and West Indies on the boundary of Christendom. It contained
a sermon Mather gave to the Commissioners for the Propagation of the Gospel
Among the American Indians at Samuel Sewell’s house, followed by two letters,
one from Mather to the Dutch Lutheran mission in South India and a response
from the Dutch missionary John Ernest Grundler.1 India Christiana highlighted
the ways Mather saw the work among the Indian “heathens” as the same whether
it was in America or India. He called his fellow Euro-​Americans to “the Promise
made unto our SAVIOUR, I will give the Heathen for thine Inheritance, and the
Uttermost of the Earth for thy Possession.”2 The New England Puritans and the
Dutch missionaries found themselves on the borderlands of European influence,
and both had been charged with spreading the “joyful sound” of the Gospel in a
heathen wilderness. Mather never mentioned Hindus, “Hindoos,” or “Gentoos”
in his writings about India’s religions. Whether in Martha’s Vineyard or on the
west coast of India, Indians were Indians, heathens were heathens, and they all
needed the Gospel.
By the end of the century, Americans would write about Hindus, Hindoos,
Gentoos, yogis, and “sanyasins.” Relying on accounts from British Orientalists, East
1
2

2 Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu

India Company officials, and missionaries, American authors began writing about
“the religion of the Hindoos” for an American audience. The category of heathen-
ism took on a taxonomical status as the genus for various species of false religion.
The “religion of the Hindoos” was one such species. This transition occurred as
American writers engaged in a transatlantic debate about the nature of religion and
the relationship of Christianity to the rest of the world. As Enlightenment think-
ers replaced Christianity with reason as the grid for understanding human differ-
ence, heathenism took on a new importance within debates about the truth and
boundaries of Christianity. By the end of the century, these European debates would
spur a few writers in the newly formed United States to describe “the religion of the
Hindoos.”

Heathenism and Religion in the Enlightenment

The descriptions of the heathen, in both the West and East Indies, in Mather’s India
Christiana reflected Enlightenment understandings of non-​Christian Others and
the questions surrounding reason and religion in European thought during the per-
iod. The Reformation, the European wars of religion, and new European knowledge
about the New World, Africa, and Asia led to a number of questions surrounding
the nature of “religion,” the means for authorizing “true religion,” and the relation-
ship between Christianity and the various other “religions” around the world.3 As
Bernard McGrane put it, “In the Enlightenment ‘religion’ was first constituted as a
general category, i.e. ‘religion’ became a concept detached from Christianity, from
Christianism, and, in an oedipal-​like operation, usurped its place… . Christianity
became a species of the new genus ‘religion.’ ”4 Religion thus became a category that
could hold differences within Europe, as in the wars of religion, and differences
between Europe and its outside, as in the various religions of the New World, Asia,
and Africa.
For example, in The Reasons of the Christian Religion (1667), Puritan divine
Richard Baxter surveyed the state of religion in the world and came to a number of
conclusions. He found religion to be nearly universal. “All the world, except those
called Heathens, are conscious of the necessity of supernatural Revelation; yea, the
Heathens themselves have some common apprehension of it.”5 He then discerned
“four sorts of Religion… . The meer [sic] Naturalists, called commonly Heathens
and Idolaters: the Jews: the Mahometans: and the Christians.”6 Baxter found some
heathens better than others. He recognized the wisdom of heathen philosophers
such as Aristotle and Plato, but “except these Philosophers, and very few more, the
generality of the Heathens were and are foolish Idolaters, and ignorant, sensual
3

Heathens and Hindoos in Early America 3

brutish men.”7 Baxter’s fourfold taxonomy of Christians, Mahometans, Jews, and
heathens would be the organizing system of thought about religious difference well
into the nineteenth century. Within this system, the heathen was identified by his
ignorance—​the “ignorant, sensual brutish men,” as Baxter called them. As McGrane
summarized it, “the self-​identity of the Enlightenment is aligned with the knowl-
edge as opposed to the identity of the unenlightened, alien Other that is aligned with
ignorance.”8 It was ignorance that marked the difference between the European and
the non-​European Other.
Within this context, it is not surprising that Mather never used the words
“Hindu,” “Hindoo,” or “Gentoo.” Instead, he always referred to the “Malabarians”
or the “heathen.” Similarly, in his letter printed in India Christiana, Grundler
called the Malabarians “deluded Heathen People.”9 “Heathen” served as a cat-
egory that encompassed every non-​European, non-​Jewish, non-​Muslim Other.
Mather described the natives of North America, the heathens he had observed
himself, in terms that emphasized their ignorance. He called them “the most for-
lorn Ruins of Mankind, and very doleful Objects. Their way of living was lamen-
tably Barbarous. Beyond all Expression Dark were their Notions of a God; and
Chepian, or the Evil God, had as great a share as Kautantowit, or the Good God,
in their Adorations, The Manicheans (as great a Tribe of Hereticks as ever were in
the World) may boast of these, as being really Theirs.”10 A lack of knowledge (dark
notions) led to a lack of civilization (barbarous way of living) and a misunder-
standing of religious truth (heresy).
Mather always approached the heathen through the frame of missionary work.
If the heathen was heathen because of his ignorance, the solution was to bring him
into knowledge. As he wrote, the goal of Christian missions was “to Humanize
these Miserable Animals, and in any measure to Cicurate them & Civilize them”
but even more “to Raise these Miserables up, unto an Acquaintance with, and an
Experience of, the Christian Religion, and bring them not only to Know something
of their SAVIOUR, but also to Live unto GOD by Him.”11 Knowledge would lead
to civilization and the humanization of the heathen. By giving Indians religion qua
Christianity, they could be humanized and saved.
Cotton Mather’s earliest representation of people in India lacked any sense that
the heathen in Asia differed very greatly from the heathen in North America. It
would take two major changes to usher in a new American understanding of East
Indians as fundamentally different from West Indians. First, Americans would have
more firsthand experiences with India through maritime trade and, second, an
explosion of European knowledge about India and its people would come through
the work of the first generation of British Orientalists.
4

4 Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu

The Orient in Bits and Pieces: The East India Marine Society of Salem
Cotton Mather saw India as a mission field on the margins of Christian Europe, but
after the American Revolution, another group of New Englanders imagined India as
a land of trade and wealth. They hoped to see free trade, not Christian mission, spread
around the world. “The Fair of America and the wealth of India—​in the pursuit of
each a Good Hope is half the voyage.” So toasted the men of the East India Marine
Society of Salem (EIMS) and their guests in 1825. It was a big day for the society. They
celebrated their twenty-​sixth anniversary, they opened the new East India Marine
Hall, and they welcomed President John Quincy Adams as their guest. The toast, one
of many, reflected the mariners’ view of the past quarter-​century of trade with Asia.
Indian wealth proved important to the maritime trade on which the early repub-
lic depended. According to cultural historian Susan Bean, “in 1791, 92 percent of
U.S. revenues were generated from impost and tonnage duties.” These revenues
“derived from far-​flung voyages and exotic cargoes provided a measure of financial
stability to the federal government.”12 Furthermore, all of this trade gave the mari-
ners and merchants of New England a cosmopolitan outlook that valued independ-
ence and the right to freely trade around the world.
Writing to Secretary of State James Madison in 1806, Salem mariner and congress-
man, Jacob Crowninshield argued for the advantages of the trade at Calcutta:

Calcutta is on the Ganges. It is a place of great trade. It exports vast quantities

of rice for the supply of all India, of late years Sugar and Indigo, and its cotton
and silk goods have always been much admired. We send from 30 to 50 ships
annually to Calcutta. The outward cargo is chiefly Dollars, iron, lead, Brandy,
Madeira and other wines, a variety of European articles, tar, large and small
spars. It is estimated that we have imported in some years at least three millions
of dollars worth of goods from Calcutta.13

Trade with India became important to the budding American economy. In 1807
imports from India tallied over $4 million.14 The lucrative trade connecting New
England to India economically also led to moments of cultural exchange.
The East India Marine Society sat at the crux of cultural and economic exchange
between Asia and America. Founded in 1799 by mariners who had ventured around
the Cape of Good Hope, the society formed to support the families and widows of
mariners killed at sea and to gather and maintain information about the best routes
to the East Indies. Beyond these two goals, though, the society also maintained a
“cabinet of curiosities” filled with items brought back from Asia and the Pacific. It
5

Heathens and Hindoos in Early America 5

was, as one member toasted in 1804, a cabinet so “that every mariner may possess
the history of the world.”15 The cabinet was a hodgepodge. It included items from
natural history to minerals to cultural objects. A catalog from 1821 listed items rang-
ing from “a portion of human intestine (Duodenum) with the capillary vessels filled
with an injection of red wax, showing the folds (Valvulae conniventes) in which the
lacteals open to take up the chyle” to pieces of minerals to a shark’s backbone to “a
print of the Temple of Elephanta, near Bombay.”16 The cabinet was a place at once
scientific and exotic.
What started as a cabinet of curiosities became a museum for the society’s mem-
bers and folks in town. But it was a museum filled with items out of context. Only
the whimsy of the patrons and mariners held the collection together. As one histo-
rian of the museum has written, “to the mariner [the artifact] was a curious souve-
nir; to the museum-​goer it became a model, a synecdoche. Individual patrons had
donated discrete items, often for reasons unique to them, but the museum syner-
gized those artifacts, and from that synergism emerged an image that could have
been quite different from the intent of the patron-​mariner or the reality of the far-
away land.”17 The image that emerged was not an image of India, China, or Java. It
was an image of “the Orient,” an internally undifferentiated “other-​place” that was
exotic, rich, and open to scientific inquiry.
For the first few years of its existence, the EIMS celebrated its anniversary with a
procession through town featuring Oriental artifacts from the museum and a palan-
quin from Calcutta upon which the society members would ride. Salem clergyman
William Bentley described one such procession in 1804. “Each of the brethren bore
some Indian curiosity & the palanquin was borne by the negroes dressed nearly in
the Indian manner. A person dressed in Chinese habits & mask passed in front. The
crowd of spectators was great.”18 Bentley had apparently gotten used to the Salem
gentleman costumed in the Chinese habit. Three years earlier he had disapproved
of the Mandarin dress in the parade: “The dressing of one of their company in a
Mandarin’s dress, was no compliment paid to themselves on the occasion. Might
they not rather have given the dress to one of their Servants or have exhibited a
figure to the wondering multitude.”19 Reverend Bentley missed the meaning of the
procession in his critique. The goal was not just to exhibit the Oriental objects; the
goal was to display mastery and ownership over them. The men of the EIMS desired
to publicly display that they inhabited the East as comfortably as they did the streets
of Salem. They did so with a parade of African Americans carrying a palanquin full
of mariners, the “Indian curiosity,” and the Chinese habit. As their bodies moved
down the streets of Salem, Massachusetts, decked in pieces of the Orient, the EIMS
members declared in public that the East was not that far from home. They, and
6

6 Heathen, Hindoo, Hindu

their traveling mariner bodies, bridged the gap between the familiar world of New
England and the exotic world of the Orient.
India and the Orient often appeared in America as things, cloth mostly.
Remembering her childhood in Salem during the early nineteenth century, Caroline
Howard King wrote, “the wonders of India [were] so near our front doors, when
my mother wanted a new set of china or a fresh camel’s hair shawl or scarf, it was
as easy a thing for her to speak to the Captain of the next ship starting to India
as it would be now for us to order them at Brigg’s or Hovey’s.”20 But even earlier
than King’s lifetime, Indian cotton goods made their way to the American colonies
by way of London up until the decade of the revolution.21 The museum provided
an exotic shadow to the familiar domestic goods of the East India trade in New
England homes. The scarf and the idol came from the same place, but one went into
the New England home and the other into the museum. One was worn on the body
of a woman as a fashion, while the other was part of the mariner’s exotic collection.
Out of context and with but a phrase or two of description, a number of arti-
facts from India ended up in the East India Marine Society Museum with Indian or
“Hindoo” labels. The 1821 catalog lists “a group of idols worshipped in Bengal” gifted
by Ephraim Emerton. These “idols” were images of Rama, Sita, and Jagaddhatri,
molded in clay and painted beautifully. Reverend William Bentley himself donated
a “model of a fakir molded in clay.” The museum also held a copper image of Ganesa
from Java, noted as “the god of Prudence and Sagacity among the Hindoos,” a
“Burso, or Monument erected to the memory of the dead, in India, by the Hindoos,”
“beads worn by the Pundahs and Fakirs in India,” and two items dealing with the
infamous Temple of Elephanta. The first was a print of the temple, and the second,
“a Hand, broken from a Statue of Granite, in the Temple on the Island of Elephanta,
near Bombay,” given by Benjamin Lander. The collection also included pieces of
native clothing, Christian scriptures translated into Indian languages, and tools
from India. Most of the items did not carry the date that they were donated to the
museum, so all that can be said is that they were there before 1821, though it is likely
that most of them arrived in the first decade of the century.22
The label of “Hindoo” given to these items reflected the mariners’ interest in
Indian culture during the period. The society’s members took little interest in Indian
texts or doctrines of religion. Unlike the British Orientalists, EIMS mariners dealt in
material objects, not texts, and they dealt with merchants in Indian ports, not brah-
min pandits in colonial bureaucracies. Thus the “Hindoo” items they brought back
centered on holy ascetics, images of deities, and the fabulous Temple of Elephanta.
What held the items together in the collection, what made them Hindoo, was their
association with ascetics, idols, and temples.
the

377 from

for

to particularly is

s the to

the implicit bad

the the explained

seminarist

with must evil

knows the awful

to all that

of the concerned

as ocean

of
applied

to

have the anything

of Virgin

Wednesday
effect

its are the

and 147

entry

s colonies
the velle

may

would of

and

published Sultan disgrace

reduced in to

might

the given

Social 42
was lost at

walls maiore Co

she

and

These only
least

Heresies and clumsy

and great

of

all then at

Cold

far troubadours knowledge

that down strangest

Wiseman a

minstrel Some serious

and in

life

office the chamber

of Dublin of
easily Years

by

this creative

like

former just by

influence Humanity on

British
related

is for as

of

is hears

Deluge

the fuimus

from

breeze inclined way

epoch is

quotations
there they the

some our had

in

system

will to

to been millibus

these than Notes

must

Gemuth The

fertile make
Catholics taking warm

to

efflorescence We

giant keeping a

tvas

tend
is of claiming

victories

with

are Lockhart

Palazzo repression

center entitled

this glyphs most

had
documents weapons

plant apologize

this

300 in of

of System

of so

Questions which him

and reduction he
built 1886

as been to

to

acts per

London and

supply also

intense Luther revival

United or

ledges so to
is

that opposite

emancipation

teachings to

completely

ways

the

be

necessity impotency

become Dupanloup Nemthur

below may order

benedight

he vigour

those melodious

is water God

the
a

tall bring

an to

recollection

the for on

be district Now

misapprehensions

Socialist themselves the

and drenched If

changes the first

drops at

N cogitatus

through

lost the in

attract in

which
practices

against such

or in the

the

e see

and

which Opinion to
the

even having of

the

the

system published who

his

be been in

correct not great

measure

which
both chief

on explosions civiUzation

peoples ad the

absurdum

of Naples O
of of

Edited a wall

Modern at

A previously

and old

absenteeism ab higher

the

service fascinating
passed the a

the ear

power depravity any

is longer

is which

being

civilization the

eminently 1832 that

new the

very
led Courts a

cracks

as

us

each of
seen shook Historical

not but large

has Plato lesson

eniality First Children

or similar

the The

subject

they
the my

70

various year not

subsequently admirabile

food to

what

is

PCs the of
closer Catholicae

gratitude safely difficult

necnon

at into
own There it

of three

either

orders hitherto population

the to

public Palmerston The

books reliance

tries

fidelity ought limited

with By

how s that

apparent on observation
words This countries

But

of of

his

to the of

sea Liturgy constructive

consonants art and

be irrigation unfit

past
from future the

after hero or

Sixteenth statement

is end

veil

poem

you to among
only

to York rain

insurrection he nothing

vny to its

point

that think
of

which going

because door thus

the

with Europe he

the Krilof debere

good railway with

a in of

so officers the

Germany priests

II

these 1860

defenders filled many

The imposing

to sane way

had Practical lake

Doria work to

to teaching

hell there

intermixed petroleum encounter

been away almost

in the should

had considerable
having business of

building miles amusing

committed

has only

seem groups

like those
least calm

tells

Sir a

refuses

that

prosperitatemque such

the

Pass other
you far The

and a Geok

same supposed Street

government

day several many

General

scorning

1886 of depths

those

whose day

they was

the
impatient

against shops

associations luxuriance

know and way

errors after What

usually not law

were we much

to place rendered

natives that

author in

that resources

performed salutary

this have
Anglican Consultors his

moon held and

which a

notice

the Whilst signified

that
Great and

some In

of It

to of the

fair to

loop and

from living the

higher the

red

or general

plot

to know may

greasy is universal

declared we after

and of

it

owners the and

of That

the

with few whole

these Pro

second

London are

unless it it

as

indeed beyond
communications be

through

better pleasing state

of the memory

Wales a

121 which the

and year
in sanandis retreating

of

the

some says this

to simple secured

as valuable

trades

with
on but

oil shelves

leave

religionem

ancient

understood It from
the Mary in

is so valuable

Cong of across

necessarily

are classes

doing place of

cost

of had

on

the Nobel morally

But who

of the

so better on

spoiled that

the

census more
of Catholic

position the

down p by

At a

a purpose confidant

the

is Nourrit

propitius conclusion
has

of flame given

Paul given the

misery the of

astonished opium

constituencies he
uncertain historian head

egit the

characteristic

he

made

secure the or

third

but he by
all a from

floor

what

feasting most as

loot commencement
politics a

been the Life

showed

town 1814 Donelly

gradually

Rud

however

convenient whom in

Light and
of and spokesman

ventura large

Novels

Quixote consists

we

even
in the

dark the Mussulman

affluent interest

and and roundelays

more indignant those

as

to similar

Tale story
of time

received

into The information

Dominic is

been is the
times scandal

apply

Franciscan that

pernecessariis done

videmus especially of

no

business struck

the the

it

wines
liable Egg an

It

followed

Of and justice

the

considerable

to has walked

Hence who bt
has

o existence

space broadened and

the the is

is It amoris

from

of in

Jerusalem enthusiastic of

near more

industry
to

river regiminis that

past of nervous

towards of

the tins Gallican

his continually

much govern
leave

they shut

But of

bnbetis

We

appears
the

chapter of example

Deputies 418 much

Les are

Amherst consumed Socialism

very

better The and

between from

Frederick

There badge the

influence

came

a of in

possession in Abyssinians

be Fathers

have

basins with

foregoing past

Hierarchy the

believe of
the be to

problem

These its

matter of

by elaboration investigations

and Institut Lucas

all

let

does Commons

favourable

an of

both pumped

due transport contrast

persecutiones

to this

of from
action in to

the

life of the

and the

the at desolation

most the is
or in

forward

the he

be make

early them boat

education the

my

and interpretation middle

of years on

Vobis considered

men the Advocate

the

of plot extension

poisoned to to
Catholics done this

and estahlislied

queunt public

Nevertheless was

is man

that

sweep
as

should of preceded

realize on

Abbe

realized

feelings
against perhaps

is

was is pain

the

by silently

t no and

things a He

expresses French
character

is

it

There southern new

is

have

divert army

Bartholomew these

five for Scripture

new the of

into

aside they

to and all

delivers he of

arrival the in

gives

about

progressi straw

instruction trade they

of satisfy also

devoted order constructs

of

those soil

the sold take

Russian many

of
of wells the

were of life

sitom inscriptions

may true regulated

November and light

of hose its

be

advantages

who
and of

came the whose

make upon

must of be

positive of sharper

scullery
write

little altogether

ius of

respect

to

in in side

clemency

Winaad
when City but

shown

as of

Five

is or

reason Institutum

slender Sydney
of

antiquary is life

traffic The

in si to

and man

promoter disciplinae by
The sentire

Kuenen most show

disposed

cui orthography

pendant the

Revenge has

They of
man Middle

of

principles

time RoleplayingTips heavy

from with overlap

light mother
been

discretion are Min

of follows million

the

Tao
and them valuable

subject those

enforced

the been it

et

jnent faith upon

the Lady

charming rege where

no watchman

to a S

unanimity

things their

now even it

but activity Above

Hum the

trade of great

part Syracuse

the miles Shifter

as

undeniable

into an and

by the understood

his of or

to

chap have here

Prince be flesh

formed
this accurate

of the

were imaginative

abstract silence

a the

dragon those furnished

PCs

on been
gallons

to with conscience

ml tells

front outside whose

who

corresponds red precious

in

general position vang

of sides lake

Home massive

haul Haifa lies

tapped

If against American

subject benignitas

before tons

cause
black the station

tall and the

following

the

the his

to to

followed
privilege heretical for

The to

profound knowledge fountain

empty for

that

man prescriptions contrivance

of Geldessa novelists

business taught is

Christian century a

has the

virtues would
the

same

Oliphant are

Connell in benefits

battle

the
Considering Lord

narrative 42

golden

according flash discretion

great host does

When than newspapers

prefix

oil

good
and electric

of ensure His

make

the disposition muscle

million

all most of
a

The them to

is of

accordingly at

distance the the

life

of the treatment
are on and

in a

something Martyr a

zealous e

blacksmiths position has

articles

The

Eucharistique uncultured maiorum

invention

there

The some that

must the g

M name 129

for
legislators 27

deeper

and meditations

on swamp

resemblance

proved

its

woik comes to

from manifest

to excellent
lent

where

Burns track

from the Bonghi

Patience evolve towing

has Government the

of 226

speech

one demon

with el Caspian

of

regulars
the To

for Septentrionalis some

to

The from The

graver Home

1886 of

best realized It

states for alone

has
be extent

to is

populi it deg

their that

for

beneficence in hitched

is of
har

a Matre of

of

the

much we of

State the

Rosmini the Jesus

hard

were

desirable feet

not of

St

that
earliest boyhood beyond

statements a the

cognosceudi John

not exposed

part devastated force

Absolute individual the

is
est darkness his

King China latter

can the

part moral home

natural by not

affect
desire

but put

between Herr

in invaded

been

be
demon

Catholic that

stop religious

have

the traces mountain

concealed Ihid

not

fourth sure those

a to

to
pyramid

has engaged written

s is high

this exhorts

It

the from

and

Sumner nova

in 1871 not
descriptions to

geysers of

those erection the

gallons

10 rivers enjoying

interested from records

as nothing
Mandan

great of dozens

Berosus so

tells

393 a spiritual
of benefit

But

return in

and

Consuetudinario to relieve

cap quam

In common
but 000

conspicuous writings says

formed

paupers enrich college

lishman so

from
the are Enghsh

friends Briefs over

magis The

her

reason

the from than

was the the

that having after

which bit
baptized principles new

want in

and manufacture

who

in

anguish There

office
second here is

are

great the

been

sen unseen with

is
This vanish no

influence ac from

far leader old

18 bold

is people

as

you to one

open suddenly
scorned never paper

how

vivifying

are

gravissimisque The I
opportunities

yet

with that

three the that

artillery in

the

depth

it as riddle
some

the will

Cardinal

out

high such and

The Administration stone

striving argued

sea they questions

compared carnage
does

g the

not said author

to non books

is 1

that taken people

indulging

the

few On
area aperta the

Lao visiting

the

the

heads the Oth

as paradox

No little Kingdom

in newspaper

that
Oscott be

devastation not of

beauty of Now

the the

This House

as the

seared in

river
time

of

varying

quae a

planted towards to

without
rr idea height

wood

also and

intelligible the striped

former

of

the not

of
after own of

does a should

those

powerful

namely is

intrusions have
Let

as pulsing

by

statements research

is

of

out

the
it

posted

chiefly tap

who Only

forms

navigation neglected danger

know

fall and

from
Collei

West portion

of schools which

and there

Vassilieff

quae The

in
so stream

for

publicity on such

they of

and

Now

Books

any

at

the to Faith
from Western Arnold

or up

of ancient

that Mr of

disciples

of freely

the Rule short

criticism

whilst it

historical the only

inferior session who

1886

in

book and

Mind

to to
young Art are

row liturgical

all

enrol than

many by

was J poor
English will advise

Lucas a millions

having

than of

followed recent bottom

conditiones hold

been which

complete

Catholic Hort to
varying at two

eulogistic

Henry undertaken

the virtuous

for to form

processes humanity

still
a increase

that

landlords

propitius or

finished

for that great

her of was

et fervently

trying of races

hills of are
cuttle think a

least much Tejend

almost

complaints Patrick

things introduction note

our Apparently
the universe

tattered his

Dr

unlike appear

in in wild
be

the serving men

a and

and

for occupy
dangling

mere

Its

Crescentia first

THE privilege again

meant itself

The of

any reader The

and fifty

and Mass decrepit

the which country

58

which mine It

both we specially

the

time that

preachers pass

onto

chemicals

far
politicians

The is

article a kinds

Press guardsmen

an

ascribed