Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay

Untitled
The German version is *FAR* more complete and should really be translated to replace the English one.

Location of article
Normally a peer is listed with their peerage title and in Macaulay's case he is often referred to as "Lord Macaulay". I can't see a reason to exempt him from standard practice. Also his middle name is often used on his books, with "Babington" the far more common version. So I propose a move to Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay. Timrollpickering 19:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a Bad Idea (tm) as he is by far more widely known and refered to as Thomas Macaulay, with the references to his name with full peerage not even having a meaningful minority. It would thus make far more sense to simply supply a redirect from Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay to the present location. Realisticly, 99% of people coming to look up data on him in Wikipedia would look for "Macaulay" or "Thomas Macaulay" rather than something else. Sander 17:47, 23 January 2005 (UTC)


 * He is very frequentlycalled either "Thomas Babington Macaulay" or "Lord Macaulay".   It is very rare to see a book credited to "Thomas Macaulay", and Wikipedia policy is not to use "Lord ..." as a page title but the correct peerage title. This is not a case of someone who is so well known without their peerage, the qualifier for not using them. Those search terms still lead to this page. Timrollpickering 18:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Babington should be in. I'm not sure that the peerage title should be in the article title. This seems a relatively similar case to Bertrand Russell - but I'm not sure either way. john k 18:32, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I prefer "Thomas Babington Macaulay", and strongly disagree with the current title ("..., 1st Baron Macaulay"). First of all, "1st" is a barbarism. Second, the repetition of "Macaulay" does nothing for the article title; we can find out his peerage title by reading the article itself. He may be called "Lord Macaulay", and in that case there should be a redirect at Lord Macaulay, but I assure you that Macaulay is never referred to these days as "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay". I've just put in a request for Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson to get the same treatment. (Cf. Walter Scott and Arthur Sullivan, where Wikipedia doesn't even mention the "Sir" in their titles.) But I see that Alfred, Lord Tennyson gets the same treatment, so maybe I'm too late. --Quuxplusone 15:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions (names and titles) lists the current conventions followed on this. Timrollpickering 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

His title
The article says twice that his title was Baron MacaulEy, but the article's title gives it as Baron MacaulAy. Which is correct? 66.92.237.111 07:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's Baron Macaulay, of Rothley. - Nunh-huh 07:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quotations need citing. In particular, are they all by Macaulay? The first one looks more likely to be about him (it fits well, anyway), and often the Quotations sections of pages contain both.

What a bizarre article. It seems to be fixated on Macaulay's attitutes to India, to the exclusion of everything else he did - which was a heck of a lot! Paul B 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The title is exactly correct.

The article has been much improved, but it seems to me there are quite a number of errors, especially towards the end. For instance, Macaulay spent his final years at Holly Lodge, Campden Hill, London, not in Thames Ditton, he was re-elected to Parliament from Edinburgh in I think 1850 and gave a memorable speech to mark the occasion, etc. I have Macaulay's letters and several biographies, and will try to post an edit in the near future.

The India stuff is pretty good, but suffers from a few technical defects -- any corrections I make in that part will be limited.

Oz Childs

India quotation
The following quotation has several times been added to this article. Please note that it is wholly spurious. "On 2nd February, 1835, addressing the British Parliament he quoted 'I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.'"

The date given refers to the Minute on Education, which does not contain the above words. Nor is it to be found in Hansard. It is, of course, absurd. He never saw a beggar in India? There are no thieves in the entire country? Yea, right. Paul B 21:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it is absurd. But he still might have said it. Perhaps, if someone could cite a reliable source.... – Agendum 22:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it absurd? Dont forget that Indias poverty is, in the cycles of civilizations, a relatively new phenomenon - really a colonial and post-colonial condition. For most of history and certainly before British conquest, India had the most highly complex, developed, and productive economy in the world. It is precisely why control of Indian ports was the key factor in the rise and fall of the Dutch empire, and subsequently the British empire. So, in an emphatic speech and slightly hyperbolic speech, saying such things is far from 'absurd'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadsworth08 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It completely contradicts what he does say in the 1835 Minute. If it were true that he said it in parliament it would be in Hansard.Paul B 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On 2 February 1835, Macaulay was in India preparing his immortal minute that laid foundation for the modern India. He could not have appeared before the British Parliament and spoken those lines. Those lines are unlike of Macaulay. See his vision here:[]. He was never spiritually inclined, and he never considered India as a spiritual land. And he cannot be faulted: anyone who witnessed a Spanish Inquisition is bound to misunderstand Christianity, and anyone who saw the India of 1820's and 30's was bound to misunderstand Hinduism. I am Indian, and I was educated a hundred and fifty years after Macaulay devised his education system. And I hold him to be the single most influential man who redirected India into the modern world. -Gopalan evr 08:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC), 12 October 2006 (IST)


 * Thank you, Gopalan Evr - that helps put it into proportion. Putting the alleged quotation into Google, it has been oft repeated (over 100 hits) and the source for these would appear to be "The Awakening Ray, Vol.4 No.5, (The Gnostic Centre) Reproduced in Niti issue of April, 2002 at p.10 - a periodic publication of Bharat Vikas Parishad, Delhi." For what it's worth. – Agendum 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a misattribution, see Koenraad Elst's article. utcursch | talk 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is everyone closing a transparent conversion so quickly. He might have said something like this and could have interpreted slightly different. Modern historians may not agree with the facts. This might have been a real letter sent by him to the parliament. Again without enough proof or documentation one cannot conclude.--22:36, October 31, 2007 User:90.200.14.11


 * Anyone can make up quotations and put them on webpages. The evidence that this is fake is overwhelming. Paul B 22:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the spurious quotation again: "I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country,..." Now, 1. by 1835, India had been thoroughly conquered except for Punjab, so the question of Macaulay desparing about not able to conquer India does not arise; 2. Anyone who wants to know about the "high moral values" of the people in the late 18th century may read about the decline and fall of the Mughal Empire, period; 3. "people of such calibre", that the British hardly encountered anywhere an army stronger than 50,000, in a country of tens of millions. Again, read the misquote: "I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." Okay, if the British imposed the English education and replaced Sanskrit, why could not all the Maharajas and people support Sanskrit education and keep themselves enlightened? Patriotism should not cloud one's judgement. It is a pity that even Shri APJ Abdul Kalam, former President of India, had been misled to quote the above passage once. Gopalan evr (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gopalan evr for giving your idea, but actually, by conquest Macauly meant to gain respect of the British in India, remember Mughal where also outsiders once,but where looked as Kings and where respected by people afterwards. The old education could not be completed because whole of the India was annexed till then and the Rajas, Nawabs and Zamindars then where just officer under the Company. Also English education system gave good carrer opportunity then and till then India's agriculture system was shattered and poverty was on rise. Also English education system put to use in India and still used is not very good even when compared to Western countries which are using a similar system. So its exaggeration to view Macualy as a person who puts India to path of Modernization. The above stated statement could infact be true, since hiding the facts is much easier, but anyways what would anyone gain by it now.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.45.2 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the entire conversation again. The question is not about the merits or demerits of English language as the medium of higher education but about Macaulay having said or not said a particular statement. A quotation was ascribed to Macaulay, which was shown to be spurious. The other references are contextual.
 * Now, about the role of Macaulay in Indian history, let us ask the following questions: 1. What is the role of English language in India's modernization? 2. Could any other language have taken up that role? 3. What was the language the people of British India paid money to learn, and are still paying to learn? 4. What was the official language of India till 1835? 5. Could India have aspired for liberty, equality and fraternity in the Mughal India by studying in Persian or in Maharajas' India by studying in Sanskrit? 6. Which language spread these ideas among the Indians, and served as a vehicle to unite different parts of British India? 7. Why was the Indian freedom movement a failure in the princely states? 8. Which rule was liberal in the early 1800's: the Marathas', Maharaja Ranjit Singh's or the British? 9. Who was instrumental in bringing English as the medium of higher education? and 10. How would you characterize that person? Let us learn to distinguish between the effects of the British rule and the effects of English language on India. The first one can be questioned regarding its benefits, but the second one is, on the whole, beneficial. Gopalan evr (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I heard in one of the lectures of Dr. N. Gopala Krishnan, Honorary Director of Indian Institute of Scientific Heritage, Thiruvananthapuram that Max Muller wrote to Macaulay that "I am going to mis-interpret Vedas and other Scriptures of Sanatana Dharma Traditions whereby the Hindus (especially, the elite who were following English Education) would loose respect for the Vedas and Vedic Traditions. When the Hindus would loose respect for Vedas, there would be a vacuum created in their (the elite and leaders of India) minds and it is your duty to fill that vacuum with Christianity and its traditions through English Education". This letter in original is available in Kerala University Library in Thiruvananthapuram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.194.223 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, you either misremembered, or Dr. N Gopala Krishman is very confused. This has nothing to do with Macaulay. The letter was from Max Muller to Duke of Argyll on Dec. 16, 1868, several years after Macaulay died. It contains the statement "The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?". The stuff about deliberately misinterpreting the Vedas is just Hindutva propaganda, which extrapolates conspiracy theory from a letter he wrote to his wife, again unconnected with Macaulay. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it this might be a garbled version of the story Muller tells about how he met Macaulay to try to disuade him from his plan to introduce English-language education to India. Muller supported Sanskrit over English. In other words, Muller was actually opposed to Macaulay's plan. Paul B (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this letter actually displays the British policy of "Dive and Rule" and that he Macaulay supported it. I found some people here think that Indian society or culture was actually helped by Brits....no way...guys remember they spent a lot of fortune, efforts and time to find an alternate path to India, why do you think they did it? Was it charity to help Indians to evolve, nah... it was for there own selfish motive. They always intended to have connections with India and tried every way to have supremacy over the sub-continent. Also someone was surprised to read that there were no beggars in India...its true, even today in the Sikh sect you wont find a single beggar. Gopalan said that Brits helped India develop by westernizing, dude please check the history, just a small example of Indian advancement in near past, Tipu Sultan had developed Rockets which no one in the world had never even thought of till that time. So the point is, maybe we don't have enough evidence to prove that Macaulay wrote such a letter and that is because the letter would be with Brits who might not make it public to avoid the embarrassment that for both the nation and Macaulay.Bmayuresh (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check the dialogue again; I did not say the British helped India develop by westernizing. The discussion is about whether Macaulay said or not a certain passage. The conclusion is he didn't. All other material is only sideshow. There will be a time and place to discuss about the way India would have developed without British intervention, but this is not it. Again, even if it so happened that Tipu would have had launched a satellite with his rockets but for the British, to what extent India would have made use of that technology given its social conditions is debatable. May be we would have had railways, but with separate coaches for different castes, with the higher castes' coaches near the engine and the lower castes' coaches in the rear; may be we would have had aircrafts, but the commercial pilots and the air force pilots would have been declared as two separate castes and not allowed to intermarry. The point is, to face history without flinching at its truths, is still difficult for most of us. Gopalan evr (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether the British empire was good or bad for India is a legitimate matter of debate. No one is suggesting that British involvement was anything other than fundamentally self-interested. But all that is irrelevant. All that matters here is whether Macaulay said or wrote those words. We can imagine him saying anything we like, but he can't have addressed the British Parliament on 2nd February, 1835, because he was in India! And we know what he did write on that date, in which he says the exact opposite of what is attributed to him. Paul B (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking on Hansard for 1835 on the Hansardmillbank website to see if a speech by some lesser light has been reattributed to Macaulay, it rapidly becomes clear that another good reason why he couldn't have addressed Parliament on the date given is that it wasn't sitting. Heigh -ho Rjccumbria (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Casino page
×LINK to Macaulay's speach on the Exclusion of the Jews - links to a Casino page in Spanish 86.17.152.129 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Churchill
Sir Winston Churchill, in his school days, once won a prize for reciting the 'Lays of Ancient Rome'. Gopalan evr (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chancellor's Gold Medal
If any one knows for sure that he won the Chancellor's Gold Medal at Cambridge, pls could you put it on this page with the date. Thanks

Macaulay won the medal in 1819 for "Pompeii". He also won in 1821 for "Evening". Pompeii is still readable. "Evening" is probably what inspired Macaulay to later write, "in general, prize sheep are good for nothing but to make tallow-candles, and prize poems are good for nothing but to light them."

(A collection of all the medal winners is in an 1859 book, findable on Google; it's also referred to in the Letters of Thomas Babington Macaulay, in the biography by Sir George Otto Trevelyan, and the poem is usually included in Macaulay's miscellaneous works -- sometimes bound with the speeches).

˜˜˜˜ Oz Childs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.86.14 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The ODNB has him winning the Chancellor's Gold Medal in 1821, I have added this with the reference. The ODNB website is accessible to most people with a British local authority library card, and many public libraries elsewhere will have subscription. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

coat of arms
Is there any purpose served by the section on the coat of arms? Rjensen (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The spurious Inda quotation again.
This spurious speech has turned up again. Since it is clearly widely known, it ranks as notable in itself. Furthermore, people may be inserting it in good faith, so it would be good to have a clear statement in article space of its falsity. I'm suggesting that it could beome an article on its own, called something like The spurious Macaulay India speech, and the whole story of its history and demonstration of its spuriousness can be stated in an easily accessible way. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether it should have its own article (it's not the Protocols of Zion!), but I could be swayed if we have enough sources about it, but I agree it should be mentioned. This, although a blog, gives a good background to the issue. Malick78 (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I doubt it deserves its own article, but if the William Lynch speech does, then maybe so. It is already discussed to some extent on Wikiquote here . Paul B (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Anti - Hindu Approach"
Is this section - or at least its title - justified, as it features just one quotation and provides no further argumentation? Zonder (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Errors in word definitions
The problem with the writings of Macaulay is the word 'India'. It gets a feeling that there was a nation called India. The word 'India' was basically a geographical expression used to denote the geographical area known as the Indian peninsula. It was just a huge land mass consisting of around 650 kingdoms of various sizes, and more than 2000 small and big rulers and kings, of various domains.

Again, the word 'Hindu' is also huge mistake. The Brahmanical religion connected the term 'Hindu' was not the religion of others. In fact, only in the early decades of the 1900s did the other castes be accepted as Hindus. Till that time, the other castes had their own gods, and traditions which were not at all connected to Hinduism. Before this time, the huge number of populations outside the Brahmanical religion was not allowed to enter any Hindu temple. If they did enter, many of them would have been quartered.

As of now, everyone of these castes have been forcefully joined into Hinduism, and they have no complaints. Many of them now consider Hindu gods as superior to their own traditional gods, or claim that their own gods are just mere 'avatharams' of Hindu Trinity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.253.169 (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relations with Lord Lansdowne
Though proud to have helped pass the Reform Bill, Macaulay never ceased to be grateful to his former patron, Lansdowne, who remained a great friend and political ally.
 * Not clear what this means. Did Lansdowne oppose the Reform Bill? Valetude (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I would imagine the supposition is that anyone helping to pass the 1832 Reform Bill would/might have done so from motives so pure as to be opposed/ungrateful to anyone (even a Whig proprietor) who had previously been so mired in corruption as to have owned a pocket borough. I would think that supposition dubious, given that the 1832 bill did not set out to abolish pocket boroughs (just cut them down to size) and actually created new ones, such as Huddersfield, but others might think different. Rjccumbria (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Good one
God bless every one who contributed positively to this great profile. That's a true Lord. Realtimesongs (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Source

 * https://caravanmagazine.in/reviews-essays/biography-macaulay-unwritten-tell-us &#x222F; WBG converse 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান
উনিশ শতকের শিক্ষা সংস্কার এ অবদান 2409:4060:2E08:A756:A198:42AE:DD1E:69B0 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Boswell?
No mention of Macaulay’s review (1831) of Croker’s edition of Boswell’s ‘Johnson’ in which Macaulay rubbished not only Croker, but Boswell himself such that ‘Johnsonian biographers are still trying to undo the damage.’ See Volume VIII of The Works. ~ 60.240.70.52 (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)