Storia do Mogor 15: X. MANUCCI, THE AUTHOR AND THE MAN.
Storia do Mogor (Irvine) 15
- Language
- English
Contents
X. MANUCCI, THE AUTHOR AND THE MAN.
15.1.1
A work written by an Italian not in his mother-tongue, but in Portuguese, has always presented an interesting problem. We find now, on consulting the Codex at Venice, that about one-third of the whole work was drawn up originally in Italian. I have not used this text much, so I am not able to say fully in what it differs from the final copy of Parts I. to III., prepared in French and in Portuguese for transmission to Europe. But from what I have seen of it, the Italian text is much inferior in arrangement to the Berlin MS. ; its only use is to furnish a various reading here and there, and, perhaps, a few extra details worth preserving. The explanation for the choice of language, perhaps not a very sufficient one, as given by Manucci in two or three places, is that he was forced to change the language according to the nationality of the amanuensis available at the time. For instance, what he says (in Italian) on folio 364 of Codex XLIV. (Zanetti) is : ' Owing to the want of an Italian copyist, I have been obliged to continue my work in French, and even in Portuguese. The latter is far from correct, there not being any scribes here who are careful to seek always for the meaning of words ; I leave the matter to the goodwill of the learned.' From this point he drops Italian for French, and shortly after changes into Portuguese.
15.1.2
The French, as it seems to me, is handled with less freedom and force than the Portuguese. The latter would probably be deemed a patois, but I am not in a position myself to judge it, or compare it with more highly-elaborated compositions in that language. As used by Manucci, it has the merits of being simple, direct, and graphic ; and it forms an excellent vehicle for his narrative. As a raconteur Manucci takes high rank, knowing all the secrets of how to tell a story, precision of place and date, abundance of appropriate and convincing detail. Passages that may be singled out from much that is nearly as good are the death of the eunuch Basant, the author's first surgical case at Lahor, the onset of the Rajput chivalry headed by their red-eyed, opium-maddened bards chanting their battle-songs, the Nathan-like apologue told to Bishop Caspar Affonço of San Thomé, and the scene at the bleeding of Shah 'Alam's wife. Many others might be adduced. His style, though simple and non-literary, is extremely vivacious. He had what Catrou calls 'je ne scai quel feu d'imagination' in his mode of narration ; he never fails in interesting and carrying his readers along with him, and reproduces something of the stir of life in Indian cities, and their vividly contrasted splendour and squalor. In an occasional grossness of expression, opposed to our present canons of taste, he is following only the usage of his age and country. On the other hand, he is seldom guilty of pruriency or lubricity.
15.1.3
As an historian Manucci presents us with a somewhat mingled yarn. His supposed extracts from the Mogul official chronicles are for the reigns preceding that of Shahjahan a tissue of absurdities. These fables were, no doubt, current among the people, but they are distortions of the facts, as such folks' talk always is. What is told about Jahangir, whether true or not, is at any rate characteristic, and might be true. With the reign of Shahjahan things alter, and certainly for the later years of that reign and for the fifty years of Aurangzeb Manucci is a writer whose statements cannot be ignored. I will not assert that what he says must always be believed. He was at times misinformed; he was prejudiced; he wrote in the decline of life, thirty to forty years after many of the events had happened. I do not think he was intentionally unveracious; he is, indeed, quite honest and specific, as a rule, about the sources of his information. No doubt he had a penchant for the personal side of history — in fact, he has been called a 'backstairs gossip,' — but I do not think this condemns him as unworthy of credit. Oriental history, as tricked out by venal and fulsome pens, tells us little or nothing of the real character of the actors in it, or of the inner causes of events; and a writer like Manucci supplies us with the necessary corrective of lifelike, if at times sordid, detail.
15.1.4
Merely because they reveal undignified or discreditable actions, I do not hold that his stories should be rejected, while I think they are always true to the spirit of the time and country, and therefore antecedently probable. Governor Pitt's remark that the work was a 'history of Tom Thumb' is absurd, and the less worthy of respect that he had not seen any part of what he was condemning. One of the principal objects I have had in writing the notes which I have added to the text has been to show that, with rare exceptions, Manucci's statements, where they can be verified, are historically accurate, and a fair inference is that, where there is no such corroboration, he may equally be accepted as trustworthy. In my opinion Manucci has not copied from others, with the partial exception of F. Bernier. Evidently he possessed Bernier's book, and I think that where the two deal with the same events, Manucci took the order of his subjects from Bernier. Even then the topics are used chiefly as suggesting to him his own reminiscences. Another fact which distinguishes Manucci from Bernier is that in the contest for the crown they were on opposite sides, Manucci with Dara and Bernier with Aurangzeb; and we thus obtain the story of the defeated faction, which is frequently suppressed by the victor's eulogists.
15.1.5
In one instance Manucci may be convicted of actually copying Bernier. But after 1667, when the French physician left India, no suggestion can be made of any debt due to him by our author. Bernier was, of course, a trained physician and a man of superior education. But Manucci was an equally acute observer, and had an advantage in his very much longer experience of the country. In one or two cases, for instance, that of the siege of Bhakkar, p. 93, Bernier was probably indebted to Manucci himself for his information. If before 1667 Bernier (p. 55, ed. Constable) had the political prescience to see that the Mogul military power was rotten at the core, and could easily be overthrown by a small but well-commanded European brigade, we must not refuse some credit to Manucci for having, thirty years later, equally foretold the course of history. On folio 66 of Part III. (written in 1700) he says : ' I assert from what I have seen and tested, all that is required to sweep it away and occupy the whole Empire is a corps of thirty thousand European soldiers led by competent commanders, who would thereby acquire the glory of great conquerors.' Manucci seems to have had strong likes and dislikes. The chief objects of his dislike are the emperor Aurangzeb, the Portuguese, and the Jesuits. Can anyone assert that in any of these cases he had nothing to justify him ? His romantic attachment to Dara Shukoh, his first master, possibly made him unfair to Aurangzeb.
15.1.6
But, I ask, can a man who attacks and kills two brothers, imprisons an aged father, and thus ' wades through slaughter to a throne,' be held up as a model of all the virtues ? Were the Portuguese, in those days of their decay, not open to the censures passed upon them by Manucci ? Were the methods of the Jesuits as missionaries, and their defiance of the Pope, deserving of no reprobation ? In all other cases Manucci is usually tolerant, but does occasionally break forth into bitter and bigoted remarks on both Hinduism and Mahomedanism. He also takes a very low view of the Indian character, Hindu and Mahomedan, a view, though far from being the whole truth, which has impressed itself strongly on the majority of Europeans. Strangely enough, he entirely disapproves of and ridicules astrology ; yet he is always ready to swallow anything in the nature of witchcraft or soothsaying. Another of his peculiarities is his readiness to attribute poisoning as the cause of any great man's sudden death. He is constantly making such accusations against Aurangzeb. Possibly there are some grains of truth hidden in this wholesale denunciation ; and Manucci's readiness to see poison everywhere may be attributed, perhaps, to his Italian origin, and his knowledge of what had been the case in his own country.
15.1.7
Parts I., II., III. were written in 1699 and 1700, Part IV. between 1701 and 1705, Part V. between 1706 and 1709. On p. 21 of Part II. the then date is given as March 9, 1699 ; when he was writing Part III., p. 241, it was December, 1700. He began the work at the instigation of François Martin and Boureau-Deslandes, with whom he was intimate ; and the intention evidently was to send it to Europe for presentation to Louis XIV., in the hope that he would direct its publication.
15.2.1
I can find no reference to Manucci in Tavernier ; and Mr. W. Foster informs me that there is no mention of him in the travels of Jean de Thevenot, who in 1666-67 travelled through Gujarat and Gulkhandah, visiting Surat and Machhlipatnam. Manucci mentions Tavernier once in passing in rather disparaging terms ; but it does not seem that the two men ever met. He speaks of 'Monsu Tavirnier's' presence at Dihli in 1665 (Part V., f. 75), and his recourse to a French doctor (not named, perhaps François de la Palisse), to help him in the sale of his jewels to Aurangzeb, who was far from being so liberal a buyer as Shahjahan. Tavernier holds out a promise to get the doctor a new wife in France, whereupon the man tries to poison his Portuguese consort. In 1666 her sister, the renegade wife of 'Ali Mardan Khan, rescues her, and removes her to Lahor, but afterwards poisons her there herself.
15.2.2
There was, however, another traveller, a fellow-townsman, who encountered Manucci, and is mentioned by him. The year must have been 1679. This man, Angelo Legrenzi, published a book, 'Il Pellegrino nell' Asia . . . ,' 240 pp., 12mo., Venetia, 1705. Manucci mentions him (Part V., f. 185) in these terms: 'When I was at the court of Shah 'Alam in Aurangabad, there arrived a Venetian physician called Angello Legrenzi. He had come from Aleppo, having quitted the service of the Most Serene Republic, and at the age of thirty-five had set out to seek his fortune afresh. He was possessed with various ideas, and concealed in his mind many thoughts. He came to see me, and presented to me a recommendatory letter from Father Ivo, Capuchin, of Surat. I received him most courteously, offering him the use of my house, also to his companion, one Signor Protasio, a noble German. I was greatly pleased at his coming, seeing myself thus quit of several patients who came bothering me every day. Forthwith I appointed him my coadjutor, to secure him more respect, and introduced him into the presence of the head physician, Muhammad Muqim, with a view to his getting an appointment from the prince and an adequate salary, and thus not being hindered from practising. The worthy "patrician," seeing I treated him so well, was highly pleased, but he would not follow my advice. He displayed great eagerness to enter the prince's service and get a salary.
15.2.3
'To show his ability and that he was not a surgeon but a physician, he wrote a small tract dealing with the four principal kinds of fever, their causes, and the remedies for dispelling them. Seeing that he had no faith in my word, still less in that of other friends, I again took him to the Hakim, to whom he presented the book and explained its contents. Muhammad Muqim was content to let him talk, and by his face seemed to approve of what he was saying. To all appearance Legrenzi was satisfied, believing that he had done a good stroke by presenting the work, and that he would be thereby thought more of at the court. 'However, knowing the contrary, I told him he might be very thankful if he met with any success. When dismissing him, the Hakim said he might renew his visits. I continued to help him with a horse and servants, who every day accompanied him, since the Hakim lived half a league from my house. This going and coming went on for a year without the Hakim ever sending him a single patient, although he still spoke to him, but my "patrician" had no idea what that meant.
15.2.4
'Finally, to disenchant him, Muhammad Muqim one day directed his servant, who acted as interpreter — an Armenian called Giuseppe (Joseph) — to sit down close to him. My "patrician" was aggrieved thereby, and on reaching home told me. I knew not what else to say except that he must have patience. The following day he went back and wasted his time, seated there for over three hours. At last the Hakim asked if he knew what God was. At this question Legrenzi was stunned and said nothing, perceiving that such a demand was equivalent to dismissal; thus was his joy turned into sorrow. Therefore he went back by the road he had come, lamenting his strange fortune, and resuming his old place which he had quitted, where he was well received. Signor Protasio remained with me, as he had no money to meet his journey; a year afterwards he started, I helping him as well as I could, and I never heard of him again.' It is a mere surmise, but it seems to me very possible that Manucci had seen Legrenzi's book of 1705 before he wrote the above passage taken from Part V., and that it is his retort courteous for Legrenzi's somewhat uncivil depreciation. Or as an Italian writer, P. Amat di S. Filippo ('Studii sulla Storia della Geografia . . .' I., 440) says: 'This judgment [of Legrenzi on Manucci] is, however, not devoid of prejudice, both being followers of Esculapius';
15.2.5
and again, speaking of the 'Storia,' he says, 'From these [the Memoirs] it can be seen (at least as regards education) that the finding of Legrenzi ought not to be accepted blindly.' Let us turn now to Legrenzi's story in 'Il Pellegrino,' Libro Terzo, 192-310 (India), Of the city of Aurangabad, 220-227. On p. 223 the passage begins thus: 'Besides these paid artillerymen the prince entertains several medical men, or rather surgeons, for they practise not only physic but surgery; I do not say in cases of importance—on the contrary, only in more humble operations, such as letting of blood, cupping, blistering and such-like. Among these gentlemen I had the luck to find a fellow-countryman, named Nicolo Manucci, a person with great credit among the nobles, with the handsomest salary I have heard as given in this country—that is, three hundred rupees a month. Such a happy encounter consoled me much, being aware of how rare it is to find Italians there, much less a Venetian. It is impossible to describe how often we embraced, how lively were our demonstrations of affection, how long our talks and interrogations. For he had been away from home nearly thirty years, and was extremely anxious to learn about his connections, even when not known to me, about the condition of Venice city, and other particulars.
15.2.6
'Our civilities over and the many inquiries ended, he began in a few days to converse seriously with me to find out my plans, and openly asked me if I wanted to enter the prince's service, where he assured me that I should meet with more than ordinary fortune, he meanwhile offering himself for recommendations and good offices with Shah 'Alam. I gave him cordial thanks for his kind feelings in my favour, but answered him that I absolutely refused to engage myself outside my native land, having come to India to see the country and its chief sights, intending thereafter to return home to my relations and connections. 'Not satisfied with this answer, my friend invited me to reflect on future contingencies at the death of the king; for the prince, as eldest son, would ascend the throne, thereby opening to me the way to benefits not less great than glorious. To sum up, all this made no impression on me, and I answered that I absolutely refused to fetter my liberty, above all with princes, who possess neither sense nor good faith.
15.2.7
'At these remarks my friend was more upset than before, desirous as he was, by whatever means he could, to induce me to rest beside him and supply him with a little light in medicine, devoid as he was of letters, and even any knowledge of the arts. I consoled him, however, on that head by saying that I would remain with him for some months, then take my departure at the decline of the season. Then arose rumours of the prince's departure for Dihli before the end of the rains. I had intended, on leaving Surat, to proceed to Gulkhandah, and thence to Goa. But it seemed to me preferable to give up that project, and to embrace the opportunity of staying on and following the route of my friend, so as to see that royal city with all else that might offer itself.'
15.2.8
On p. 230 he says that it was on July 25, 1679, that Shah 'Alam started for the north, which is possibly correct, though the year 1680 is more probable. But the journey is said to have been to Agrah in thirty-four days, and after a stay of four days, on to Dihli in six days. There, as he says, Manucci was greeted by a throng of friends ; and after a stay of two months Legrenzi returned to Surat. Then follows an account of Agrah, of Dihli, and other chapters, till the subject of India ends on p. 310. Now, I am convinced that all this journey is fictitious; it bears internal evidence, I think, that the man was never either at Agrah or Dihli, and what he knew of them was mere hearsay. Nor did Shah 'Alam, when recalled from the Dakhin for the Rajputanah campaign, go anywhere near Agrah or Dihli. As to the two versions of what happened at Aurangabad, either or both must be embroidered ; and, as just shown, Legrenzi is not above a little fiction when necessary. There is a notice of Legrenzi and his book in ' Studii Biografici e Bibliografici sulla Storia della Geografia in India,' by S. Amat de S. Filippo (Roma, 1882), p. 445.
15.3
In Manucci we have obviously a man chiefly self-educated, and not the ' learned traveller ' of Cardinal Zurla. There are two portraits of him : the extraordinary attitude — one leg almost in air — of the younger one denotes, I suppose, a lively and mercurial temperament ; the older one, in profile, reveals a very long and inquisitive nose. In any case, he must have been, full of mother-wit, shrewd, and remarkably observant.
He boasts himself of his ready tongue, and I infer that a good deal of his success turned on his power of talk, which seldom left him at a loss in any awkward dilemma. This quality made him, I assume, what is called good company, a cheerful companion; perhaps, as professed story-tellers in their old age usually do, becoming slightly a bore, and, like Dogberry, bestowing on his hearers somewhat too abundantly of his 'tediousness.' Though for a time a soldier, I gather that he had more prudence than valour, being thoroughly impressed with the importance of living to fight another day. He describes the great historic battle of Samugarh in June, 1658, as a mere spectator, and we do not hear that he fired there a single shot in his beloved master's cause. Again, outside Lahor in 1659, when his commander, the eunuch Basant, was slain, we do not find Manucci playing a very heroic part.
From his various disputes about money, and his strong dislikes, I infer that he was rather vengeful, and he was certainly pertinacious in pushing a claim. In conduct he seems to have been moral and sober; indeed, in the former respect he paints himself as a very Joseph or St. Anthony, triumphant over all temptations. Even when, as old men use, he follows Falstaff and Master Shallow in letting us know that he, too, has 'heard the chimes at midnight,' he does not seem to have got farther than peeping into the closed litter of a dancing-girl. He was a devout Catholic, and resisted successfully all attempts to make him turn Mahomedan. In his old age he was much pre-occupied with ecclesiastical disputes, and had become, I should say, rather bigoted in his faith. I have spoken already of his disliking the Portuguese; the English, among whom he lived for twenty years, he evidently respected, but did not love; his whole affection goes out towards the French, whose praises he sings more than once.
His medical knowledge must have been limited; but it was evidently sufficient to secure him some professional reputation, perhaps due to the fact that 'among the blind the one-eyed man is king.' His practice evidently consisted chiefly in bleeding, purging, and the actual cautery. He is very proud of the last remedy as a cure for cholera; he refers to it more than once, and, as can be seen in the 'Lettres Edifiantes,' he strongly recommended it to Father Martin of the Madura Mission. He also says he introduced the use of the enema, which was unknown to native practice. In selling imitations of the Goa stones he was following an example already set by the Jesuit Fathers; and another source of income was some preparation he calls a 'cordial,' probably intended as an aphrodisiac. But, knowing what we do of the healing art in Italy and France in the seventeenth century, he does not seem to have been so very much behind his European contemporaries.