________________
DECEMBER, 1898.]
IN MEMORIAM GEORGE BÜHLER.
847
It was in the same Oriental Institute, where soon after the newly founded Vienna Oriental Journal was edited, in which (from 1887) he published many valuable contributions to Indian history, epigraphy, archeology, lexicography and other branches of Indology.
As a Member of the Imperial Academy of Sciences at Vienna he not only added many valuable papers to the Procedings of the Academy, but he also took every opportunity of urging the Academy to support Sanskrit studies by grants of money for scientific purposes : - e. g., only a few years ago, for the edition of a series of highly important texts, the Sources of Sanskrit Lexicography.
Nevertheless, friendly relations to India and England suffered no interruption. We meet his name in every volume of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, and he often sent communications to Mr. Cotton's Academy, and to the Atheneum. And readers of this Journal know only too well what his loss means to the Indian antiquary.
As a representative of Vienna Universits, le regularly attended the International Congresses of Orientalists, and in the meetings of the Indian Section he always took a prominent part, in fact the part of a leader, - a part in which he will be sadly missed at the next Congress to be held at Rome. It is in no small degree owing to his initiative and his great influence that the various resolutions proceeding from the Indian Section of the Congresses, and addressed to the Governments of India, bave led to substantial results, and helped on the progress of archeological and epigraphic research in India. At these Cougreses it became clear that Bühler held the position of a recognised leader among the Sanskrit scholars of Europe, a position which he did not assume from any ambition on his part, but which was tacitly granted him as a matter of course. That this was the case is due as much to his personality as to his great scholarship. For it is characteristic of Bühler that while he won tlic love and respect of the Natives to so great an extent, he enjoyed at the same time the friendship and regard of Englishmen in India, both of scholars and of higla officials. In Europe, too, he had, by his tact and shrewd knowledge of the world, made many friends and won influence, not only in the learned world, but also in high and influential circles. In this respect also Bühler's loss to Indian studies is irreparable. For he never used liis influence but in the interest of Science.
And it lies in the nature of our studies, that for their advancement the quiet-labour of the student alone is not sufficient. We want, not only pioneers willing to work in the field of archeological and epigraphic research, but also large sums of money to enable them to undertake long journeys, to make excavations, and so on, and to make their discoveries generally accessible by costly publications; we want not only patient scholars willing to edit voluminous texts, but also large sums of money, again, to make the publication of such texts possible. All this can only be done with the help of Governments, Academies, and learned Societies. Bühler was the very man to work in this direction in the interest of Science. He had connections in influential circles both in India and in England, in Austria and Germany, and he knew how to interest persons in his cause, who are otherwise difficult to approach in anything relating to a branch of knowledge, which is still anything bat popalar. But by his energy and his wonderful knowledge of men he succeeded in carrying his point, where many another would have failed. Though he was a German scholar in the true sense of the word industrious, patient, and accurate, there was yet something of the practical Englishman in him. He was a true scholar, yet his world was never limited to his study. He was a man of the world in the interest and for the benefit of Science.
And while he possessed those qualities which enabled him to exercise influence, he was ever ready to help and to advise. No one, - whether he was a friend or pupil of his, whether a well known savant, or a young Sanskrit scholar just writing his doctor's dissertation,' applied to him in vain for help and advice; and I know many who call themselves pupils of Bühler, who have never attended a single lecture of his. He who wanted to edit a text applied to
