Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, trusted
16,894
edits
HPB-SB-14-72: Difference between revisions
Полный текст по скану
(незначительные правки) |
(Полный текст по скану) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| notes = | | notes = | ||
}} | }} | ||
{| style="width:100%; border:0; border-collapse:collapse;" | |||
| style="width:25%;" | | |||
| style="text-align:center; width:50%;" | INDIAN SPECTATOR. | |||
| style="text-align:right; width:25%;" | [December 10th, 1882. | |||
|} | |||
{{Style P-Separator custom|width=100%}} | |||
{{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|What was wanting in number and spirit at the political meeting…|14-71}} | {{Style P-HPB SB. Title continued|What was wanting in number and spirit at the political meeting…|14-71}} | ||
{{Style P-No indent|sophist. Mr. Sen’s address was a perfect hurricane of natural eloquence. What with the too-distinct pronunciation, the uniform emphasis, the Scotch accent, Bengali adjectives, and the speaker’s intense feeling, the address sounded like an ancient ''Mantra'', almost metrical in composition. The leading ideas were, we think, really grand, but the speaker was choking with generous energy, and in some parts unable to control his utterance. The most prominent features of the address were the reference to Lord Ripon’s self-government scheme, the pathetic lament on the poverty of the country, the fervid advocacy of Oriental studies, and in the peroration, the appeal to the well-to-do to help themselves and their less fortunate brethren, in the name of the Mother-Queen and the Mother-country. In spite of the speaker’s peculiarities so glaring in the presence of strangers, Mr. Sen’s effort was quite worthy of Keshub Chunder’s cousin and a leading native journalist. As Mr. Sinnett expressed later on it was one of the most remarkable utterances heard in India. The speech, of course, turned round Theosophy as its centre. The compliments levelled at Col. Olcott made him look exceedingly foolish, and our reporter says he saw Madame Blavatski blushing under her Russian furs. The audience generally listened to Mr. Sen with sympathetic interest and were often moved by his vehement protests and appeals. The speech when republished will be worth preserving, embracing as it does almost all branches of known science, and a trifle too much of the unknown too.}} | |||
The fourth speaker was the Madras delegate, an excellent man evidently, merciful to the audience, going through the discourse in less than five minutes. This and two or three others were the only ''reports'' heard—the other so-called reports were harangues and homilies. Had the audience known that there was to be so much of speech-making, they would have gone after supper. Then followed the Panjaub delegate, a young editor, who addressed the audience in very tall Hindi. The composition was a prolonged apostrophe and a glittering array of Oriental compliments. The Rast Goftar must have relished the Hindi harangue, though poor Mr. Sinnett was audibly groaning under it. | |||
After previous experience Mr. Sinnett offered a compromise here; that Col. Olcott should at once read his report after which those of the audience so inclined might walk out. The Yankee orator girded his loins, and by a characteristic side-move, offered the audience something very like Hobson’s choice. But what is Col. Olcott before a hungry Aryan audience? He had to proceed. He confined himself to facts and details, but the report was encouraging enough. Col. Olcott’s tact, his business talent, and his powers of organisation, apart from the weird scholarship which has made him so famous, make one think that that man would make an admirable Municipal Commissioner. Seriously, we should like him to take up the Local Self-Government question. We honestly believe his help would be invaluable to the people. | |||
Five delegates followed Col. Olcott, with more or less interesting information, the most acceptable being Mr. Jamsetji Unwala—short and sweet—and Mr. Gadgil of Baroda who detailed his experiences and spoke feelingly of the services rendered to the cause by Madame Blavatski. The Tinnevely delegate spoke very well indeed, but he need not have gone out of his way to abuse the absent missionaries. | |||
We must not omit the delegate who addressed the meeting in Sanskrit. The auditors followed his gesticulations better than his admirable jargon. Our reporter heard the Pandit with profound respect, but he cannot say for certain if the burthen of the harangue referred to the propagation of the Occult idea in India or the hatching of crocodile eggs on the banks of the Nile. Perhaps the question is not worth settling. Here we must say that it was stupid of the audience to interrupt the Pandit, he could not finish the horoscope till he had come to the latest progeny of the subject from its earliest ancestry. It is a sin according to the ''Shastras'' to break off in the middle. We thought Mr. Sinnett knew this. | |||
Mr. Shroff’s ''impromptu'' speech in moving a vote of thanks to the Chairman and the delegates was really very creditable. Mr. Shroff ought to make a good public speaker if he cultivates the art so much neglected by our young men. | |||
... | Mr. Sinnett’s concluding observations displayed Theosophy to the best advantage. Read side by side with the contents of his ''Occult World'' these remarks will offer a significance of their own. | ||
{{ | {{Style P-Separator custom|width=18%}} | ||
{{HPB-SB-item | {{HPB-SB-item | ||
| Line 25: | Line 43: | ||
| author signed = | | author signed = | ||
| source title = Indian Spectator, The | | source title = Indian Spectator, The | ||
| source details = | | source details = December 10, 1882; separate editorial note after the meeting report | ||
| publication date = 1882-12-10 | | publication date = 1882-12-10 | ||
| original date = | | original date = | ||
| notes = Printed source page: 790. | |||
}} | }} | ||
... | Pandita Ramábai (whom it is awkward for learned native editors to insist upon calling Rámábai) has created a very favourable impression on the public. This leads us to hope that her devotion to the cause of female education will be practically recognised by the well-to-do. Ramabai Sanskrita is not an orthodox scholar, and she expects little sympathy from Hindus of the old school. It is the more necessary, therefore, for young Bombay to befriend the reformer who is likely to do much in the way of female education. | ||
Having recognised her worth so far, we are anxious that Ramabai’s friends should not ''overdo the thing''. We are inclined to believe that much of the ''eclat'' with which the Pandita was greeted last week was due to idle curiosity. There is little of genuine appreciation in this ‘enlightened’ city of ours, and the scramble made after the Sanskrita was, honestly speaking, more owing to the novelty of the thing than otherwise. There are ‘public’ men in Bombay who are always on the look-out for strangers to lionize and to make capital out of. Now in this case a good deal has been done which cannot commend itself to sober spectators. Taking into consideration the age and the sex of the lecturer, we would advise her friends to be a little more guarded. A Hindu lady addressing unequally mixed audiences—with males five or six times out-numbering females—is not a sight to harmonise with the instincts of the people, and not likely therefore to popularise efforts of the kind in future. To be brief, it is ''improper'' as it does not consult the fitness of things. A shrewd observer like Mr. Kabraji, who knows the state of society here too well, who knows that Bombay society is not like society in the mofussil, will best appreciate our advice. We think so many gentlemen at the meeting improvised by him were out of place—at any rate they ought to have come with their ladies. The excuse may be that the latter could not have appreciated a lecture in Hindi. But for obvious reasons that is no excuse. As it was, most of the English gentlemen and the native ladies could not have followed the Pandita. There was another meeting after that, almost entirely composed of men, we are told, which poor Ramabai had to address! We would strongly advise Ramabai’s friends to keep her away from such audiences. If she is to be utilised as a power, she will work best as an invisible power. Let her remain for a few years in Mrs. Mitchell’s charge. It would be a misfortune if Ramabai were to be, after all, a brilliant failure for purposes of practical reform. The tendency appears to be to that end, and it must be checked in time. Let wealthy native gentlemen place her above want—let them create a lectureship if they like; but Ramabai’s work should be for a long many years more of a private character and confined to the presence of her own sex. | |||
{{Style P-Separator custom|width=18%}} | |||
{{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | {{HPB-SB-footer-footnotes}} | ||