¹ Bagchi, A. K., ‘Deindustrialisation in Gangetic Bihar, 1807–1901’ in De, Barun (ed.), Essays in Honour of Professor Susobhan Chandra Sarkar (New Delhi, People's Publishing House, 1976), pp. 499–522.Google Scholar

² Habib, Irfan, ‘Studying a Colonial Economy: Without Perceiving Colonialism’, Modern Asian Studies, vol. 19, pt 3 (07 1985), p. 360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Vicziany, Marika, ‘The Deindustrialisation of India in the Nineteenth Century: A Methodological Critique of Amiya Kumar Bagchi’, and Bagchi's response in the same issue of Indian Economic and Social History Review, vol. 16, no. 2 (1979), pp. 105–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Prain, D., ‘A Sketch of the Life of Francis Hamilton (once Buchanan), Some Time Superintendent of the Honourable Company's Botanic Gardens at Calcutta’, Annals of the Royal Botanic Garden, vol. X, pt 2, 1905, pp. i–lxxv.Google Scholar

⁵ For example, Prain quotes from a letter written by Buchanan to Wallich from Callender, 4 February 1817 but deliberately censors Buchanan's reference to the Court of Directors as ‘the cheese monger Emperors’ and a ‘scoundrely body’. Compare Prain, , ‘A Sketch’, p. xxviiiGoogle Scholar with the original in BM(NH), Letters of Buchanan to Roxburgh (1795–1812) and Wallich (1814–28).

⁶ R. C. Dutt's use of Buchanan's report on Mysore was highly selective and arranged in such a way as to prove his belief that company rule inflicted ‘hopeless poverty’ and excessive taxation. A few examples must suffice to prove my point. On p. 216 of Dutt's, The Economic History of India Under Early British Rule, vol. 1 (8th impression, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1956)Google Scholar Buchanan reportedly said that farmers complained of British taxation and wanted to return to older methods which required them to pay ‘two-thirds of the produce’. But Dutt studiously ignores Buchanan's response to this complaint: ‘… it does not appear that at present they pay more than two-thirds of the produce; their great object, therefore, in the wished-for change is, to have an opportunity of defrauding government in the division of the crops’. (Buchanan, Francis, A Journey from Madras Through the Countries of Mysore, Canara and Malabar (London, W. Bulmer & Co., 1807), vol. 2, p. 231).Google Scholar Again on pp. 219–20 of his work, Dutt's selective use of Buchanan's words implies that the British forced peasants to take up land even if they lacked the capital to cultivate it. But a crucial sentence in Buchanan's passage (a sentence cautiously left out by Dutt) conveys a very different meaning: ‘… the farmers, if they would not grasp it more than they have stock to manage, might be in a much more comfortable situation’ (ibid., p. 309). Dutt usually avoids reference to Buchanan's favourable comments about British rule and exacerbates the bias of his Economic History by just as carefully avoiding Buchanan's negative pronouncements on ‘native’ regimes. For instance, the government of the Raja of Cochin was not only ‘far better administered than that more fully under the authority of the company’ as Dutt, repeats on p. 222Google Scholar but it was also ‘rather severe and cruel; but with a people so exceedingly turbulent, a vigorous government at least is necessary’ (ibid., p. 388). A simple fact ought to be accepted by the academic community: Dutt, R. C. was no historian. The frequent references to his work, most recently by Habib (‘Studying a Colonial Economy’, p. 355), are simply not justified.Google Scholar

⁷ Almost immediately after the fall of Seringapatam, Mornington learnt that Bosanquet strongly opposed any hostile action against Tipu. See the correspondence between Wellesley, and Dundas, in Ingram, Edward (ed.), Two Views of British India: The Private Correspondence of Mr. Dundas and Lord Wellesley; 1798–1801 (Adams & Dart), PP. 154–5.Google Scholar

⁸ Wellesley to Lord Grenville, William, Fort, 1 May 1800, in The Wellesley Papers, By the Editor of the ‘Windham Papers’ (London, Herbert Jenkins, 1914), p. 126.Google Scholar

⁹ Mornington to Grenville, Fort St George, 9 August 1799, ibid., pp. 117–18.

¹⁰ On this see: MacKenzie, W. C., Colonel Colin Mackenzie, First Surveyor General of India (London, W & R. Chambers, 1952), chs 10, 11Google Scholar; Col. Phillimore, R. H., Historical Records of the Survey of India (Office of the Survey of India, Dehra Dun, 1950), vol. 2, ch. 7.Google Scholar

¹¹ Chambers, Robert, A Biographical Dictionary of Eminent Scotsmen (Glasgow, Blackie & Son, 1847), p. 396.Google Scholar

¹² Hendrik Adriaan van Rheede tot Drakestein (1636–91) was the Dutch Commander of Malabar from 1670 to 1677. On his life see: Marian Fournier in Manilal, K. S. (ed.), Botany and History of Hortus Malabaricus (Rotterdam, Balkema, 1980), pp. 6–17Google Scholar. Van Rheede produced this book to prove that the Malabar hinterland was of greater commercial value than the island of Sri Lanka and therefore should be the Dutch capital of India. This argument was bitterly opposed by the future Dutch Governor of Ceylon: See J. Heniger in ibid., pp. 35–69.

¹³ The search for van Rheede's herbarium continues to this day: see Johnston, Marshall C., ‘Still No Herbarium Records for Hortus Malabaricus’, Taxon, vol. 19 (08 1970), p. 655CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wagenitz, G., ‘The “Plantae Malabaricae” of the Herbarium at Göttingen Collected near Tranquebar’, Taxon, vol. 27 (11 1978), pp. 493–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Crommelin, C. R. to Buchanan, , William, Fort, 24 February 1800 [IOR, Board's Collections, 1808–09, vol. 260 (5681–5818), no. 5707].Google Scholar

¹⁵ Buchanan, to Luckipore, Smith, 2 Oct. 1796 [LS, Smith collection].Google Scholar

¹⁶ Prain emphasizes that throughout his life Buchanan gave away his collections but he makes no attempt to explain why.

¹⁷ Gage, A. T., A History of the Linnean Society of London (London, Linnean Society, 1938), ch. 1Google Scholar; Green, J. Reynolds, A History of Botany in The United Kingdom (London, Dent & Sons, 1914), ch. 28Google Scholar; Smith, James Edward, Sketch of a Tour on the Continent (London, Longman, Hurst, Rees & Orme, 1807), 2nd edn, vol. 1, p. xxiv.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Burkhill, I. H., Chapters on the History of Botany in India (Botanical Survey of India, Government of India, Calcutta, 1965), pp. 12–19.Google Scholar

¹⁹ John Hope made Linnean taxonomy respectable in Scotland: see Green, J. Reynolds, History of Botany in the U.K. pp. 223–5.Google Scholar

²⁰ Roxburgh, W. (1751–1815)Google Scholar was the Superintendent of the Botanic Garden at Samalkot from 1781 to 1793. On his life see Burkhill, I. H., Chapters on the History of Botany in India pp. 22–4Google Scholar; Desmond, Ray, Dictionary of British and Irish Botanists and Horticulturists (London, Taylor & Frances, 1977), p. 533.Google Scholar

²¹ Crawford, D. G., A History of the Indian Medical Service 1600–1913 (London, W. Thacker & Co., 1914), vol. 1, pp. 404–7.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., vol. 2, p. 62.

²³ Ibid., vol. 1, p. 369. The station was so remote that Buchanan's salary was drawn from the Commercial rather than the Revenue Department.

²⁴ Sir Joseph Banks disagreed: Banks to Roxburgh, Soho Square, 9 August 1798 [BL, Additional Manuscript, 33980, 159–160].

²⁵ Symes, Michael, An Account of an Embassy to the Kingdom of Ava, Sent by the Governor General of India in the Year 1795 (London, W. Bulmer & Co., 1800), p. 473Google Scholar only acknowledges Buchanan's drawings and specimens. ‘Banks … ought to have put Symes in the right on his subject’: Buchanan, to Smith, , Bassaria, 3 March 1802 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

²⁶ William Jones died in the year that Buchanan arrived in Calcutta. A new generation of Orientalists was rising and they were interested in the relationship between religious teaching and social practice. Henry Thomas Colebrooke was one of the leading figures and became a good friend to Buchanan. About the other Orientalists Buchanan wrote to James Smith anticipating that his essay ‘will excite the indignation of many of our antiquaries who following the example of Sir William Jones have almost become Brahmins’: Buchanan, to Smith, , Calcutta, 15 November 1797 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

²⁷ It was published by the Asiatic Society which Buchanan joined in 1796. Buchanan, Francis, ‘On the Religion and Literature of the Burmas’, Asiatic Researches (London reprint, 1807), vol. 6, pp. 163–308.Google Scholar

²⁸ For example, in his essay Buchanan wrote: ‘the Laws attributed to Menu under the hands of Brahmens have become the most abominable and degrading system of oppression ever invented by the craft of designing men’, ibid., p. 166.

²⁹ Buchanan, Francis, A Journey from Madras, vol. 1, p. 178; vol. 2, pp. 96–7, 251; vol. 3, p. 83, Tipu is reported as the destroyer of reservoirs.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 328, 367, 426, 550.

³¹ Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 55, 163, 180, 310, 327, 399; vol. 2, pp. 63, 287, 317; vol. 3, p. 61. North of Mangalore there was a shortage of people during Buchanan's visit. The Coorj Raja also kidnapped labourers and Brahmins: vol. 3, p. 64.

³² Ibid., vol. 2, p. 251; vol. 3, pp. 11, 33, 75.

³³ Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 310–11. And on p. 361 he reports that people are fleeing from the Nizam's country to regions under the Company's protection. Wellesley must have been especially pleased by Buchanan's description of the Nizam's government as ‘imbecilic’ and ‘rapacious’.

³⁴ At this early stage the British interfered in caste disputes. Buchanan approved of what Hurdis and Macleod were doing. Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 294–8, 308–9. Macleod, a military man, had been personally selected by Wellesley because Wellesley had such a low opinion about the Company's civil servants. See: Mornington to Dundas, Fort St George, 31 July 1799 in Ingram, Edward, Two Views of British India, p. 171.Google Scholar Buchanan's flattering portrait of Macleod would have delighted Wellesley.

³⁵ Buchanan, , A Journey from Madras, vol. 2, p. 175.Google Scholar Elsewhere Tipu, made pig rearing illegal, vol. 1, p. 121.Google Scholar

³⁶ Ibid., vol. 2, p. 455; vol. 3, pp. 61, 226.

³⁷ Ibid., vol. 3, pp. 137–8 Re Tipu's destruction of Honawera, built by his father.

³⁸ Ibid., Buchanan, blamed Tipu, for the decline of Colar vol. 1, p. 301Google Scholar; Bangalore vol. 1, p. 193–4; Calicut vol. 2, p. 474; Carwar vol. 3, p. 179.Google Scholar

³⁹ Needless to say all the ports and towns ruined by Tipu were reviving as a result of the benevolent effects of the British presence.

⁴⁰ Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 70–1.

⁴¹ Ibid., vol. 1 pp. 58, 163, 301, 361, 390; vol. 2, pp. 63, 90.

⁴² Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 402–6, 466–8, 547.

⁴³ Ibid., vol. 3, p. 210.

⁴⁴ Ibid., vol. 1, pp. xii–xiii. See also Francis Buchanan, Botanical Notes and Papers, 1798–1801, MS in EUL, DC.1.14.

⁴⁵ Buchanan, Francis, A Journey from Madras, vol. 1, p. 122.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 125–6.

⁴⁷ Rev. MrRobertson, James, ‘Parish of Callender’ in SirSinclair, John, The Statistical Account of Scotland (William Creech, Edinburgh, 1794), vol. 11, pp. 576, 585–6, 601–603.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ His report on the forests of Canara, for example, is full of references to plantations of various kinds, spice gardens and wild spices.

⁴⁹ Buchanan, Francis, A Journey from Madras, vol. 3, p. 287 on the possibility of establishing a teak plantation on the Tunga River.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Buchanan's account of iron and steel production stresses the scarcity of iron and the primitive production techniques.

⁵¹ Ibid., vol. 2, p. 339.

⁵² For a history of the Knox Embassy see Sanwal, B. D., Nepal and the East India Company (London, Asia Publishing House, 1965), ch. 10.Google Scholar

⁵³ Buchanan to Smith, Bassaria, 3 March 1802 [LS, Smith Collection].

⁵⁴ Buchanan's demand to be relieved by another surgeon contributed to the end of the Knox mission. Buchanan could not leave until his replacement had arrived in Katmandhu, but the Nepalese were worried about letting more Europeans into their country. Knox interpreted the vacillation of the Nepalese authorities in giving out additional passports as an insult to the British and withdrew his Embassy. Buchanan's botanical work had already contributed to the tension: the Nepalese assistants who helped him were accused of spying for the British: Sanwal, , Nepal, pp. 108; 111–12.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Wallich, Nathaniel (1786–1854)Google Scholar visited Nepal in 1820, but under much easier circumstances than Buchanan: Wallich, Nathaniel, Plantae Asiaticae Rariores, or Descriptions and Figures of a Select Number of Unpublished East Indian Plants (1830), vol. 1, pp. 35–7.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Hara, H., Stearn, W. T., Williams, L. H. J., An Enumeration of the Flowering Plants of Nepal (London, Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), 1978), vol. 1, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Wallich, N. to Buchanan, , Calcutta, 25 February 1815 [SRO, GD 161/19/4]. On Wallich see note 128 below.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Minute from the Governor-General, William, Fort, 26 July 1804 [IOR, Board's Collections, 1805–06, vol. 181 (3360–3410), no. 3403].Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Zoology was not yet the equal of Botany. The Natural History Project preceeded the formation of the Zoological Club of the Linnean Society by 18 years, the London Zoological Society by 22 years and the first Indian Journal of Natural History by 36 years: Scherren, Henry, The Zoological Society of London, A Sketch of its Foundation and Development (London, Cassell & Co., 1905), p. 2Google Scholar; Mitchell, P. Chalmers, Centenary History of the Zoological Society of London (London, Zoological Society, 1929)Google Scholar; The Calcutta Journal of Natural History, vol. 1, 1840, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Wellesley could not justify the appointment of a second botanist to the Botanic Garden of Calcutta, and a year before London had refused to approve the formation of a Menagerie at Fort William College.

⁶¹ On 9 November 1804 Captain Michael Symes wrote to Wellesley from London about public reaction to his India policies: ‘I enclose it [i.e. the letter] to Mr. Buchanan from prudential motives’. Pearce, Robert Rouriere, Memoirs and Correspondence of the Most Noble Richard Marquess Wellesley, (London, Richard Bentley, 1846), vol. 2, p. 338.Google Scholar

⁶² Both had a passion for classical studies and natural history. As Governor-General, Wellesley collected 2660 folios of natural history drawings: Archer, Mildred, Natural History Drawings in the India Office Library (London, HMSO, 1962), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁶³ He was impatient with Roxburgh's poor Latin and inadequate knowledge of Linnean taxonomy. Later in life he struggled in his own work to preserve the purity of Latin and the simplicity of Linnean taxonomy: ‘…you will also see that I am out of all patience with the monstrous innovations and unnecessary slang that have of late been introduced into the Linnean language, and with the absurd manner in which vile names, unclassically derived from the Greek have been manufactured producing words more intolerable than the worst of those expelled by Linneus’. Buchanan, to Smith, , Leny, 5 November 1825 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁶⁴ By 1798 he had written two zoological papers which were published by the Linnean Society: Prain, , ‘A Sketch’, p. liiiGoogle Scholar. And from his early years in Bengal he collected information about fishes which resulted in an important scientific publication: Hamilton, Francis, An Account of the Fishes Found in the River Ganges and its Branches (Edinburgh, Archibald Constable and Co., 1822), 2 vols with 59 plates [BL, 455, e. 22].Google Scholar In Mysore he speculated on the relationship between Asiatic and European breeds: see his comments on water buffalo, Journey from Madras, vol. 1, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar Buchanan was also one of the first Europeans to examine India's white tiger: Buchanan, to SirBanks, Joseph, Calcutta, 28 Jan. 1804 [RBG].Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The initial monthly budget was Rs 1,000 (Rs 500 for the menagerie, Rs 100 for an artist, Rs 40 for a writer, Rs 60 for stationery, Rs 300 to collect wild animals) plus additional contingent expenses of about Rs 600.

⁶⁶ Torrens, W. M., The Marquess Wellesley (London, Chatto Windus, 1880, vol. 1), p. 296.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Cornwallis died at Gazepore on the 3 October 1805, but the financial cutbacks continued. For details about the fate of the Natural History Project see documents in IOR, Board's Collections, 1807–1808, vol. 199, no. 4471.

⁶⁸ The Company Directors did not demand his impeachment but they did insist on a parliamentary enquiry into his performance whilst in India: Phillips, C. H., The East India Company, 1784–1834 (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1961), p. 147.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Buchanan, to Hamilton, John, London, 17 July 1806. [SRO, GD 161/18/-].Google Scholar

⁷⁰ By 1806 Smith had completed his ‘Flora Britannica’ and was in the midst of publishing the 36 volume work ‘English Botany’.

⁷¹ Buchanan, to Smith, , London, 17 March 1806 [LS, Smith Collection]Google Scholar. This letter shows that Buchanan did not ‘give away’ his collection as Prain claims: Prain, , ‘A Sketch’, p. xviii.Google Scholar

⁷² Phillips, , The East India Company, p. 149.Google Scholar

⁷³ Buchanan, to Smith, , London, 20 June, 1806 (?) [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Buchanan, to Smith, , London, 17 July 1806Google Scholar, 3 August 1806, 4 November 1806 and 22 November 1806. [LS, Smith Collection]. Hume was England's leading patron of the arts, an amateur naturalist and a towering personality in the Royal Society: Dictionary of National Biography pp. 208–9.Google Scholar Jacob Bosanquet came from a wealthy merchant background and was one of the most influential Directors of the East India Company in which he represented the ‘City Interest’: Phillips, , The East India Company, pp. 95–131.Google Scholar Bosanquet was deeply opposed to Wellesley's war against Tipu Sultan (see note 7 above).

⁷⁵ Exotic Botany, vol. 2, on pages 73, 75, 77 and 79 Buchanan's name appears as Buchannan.

⁷⁶ This information is based on Buchanan's letters to Smith (see note 74), but the Humes claimed that there was no substance to Buchanan's fear. I accept Buchanan's view of the matter because it is consistent with Roxburgh's numerous earlier efforts to have two of his six sons appointed to good positions in the Company's Service: See, for example, SirBanks, Joseph to Roxburgh, , Soho Square, 7 January 1799Google Scholar [BL. Banks Letters Add. MSS. 33980, 170–1]; Roxburgh, to Banks, , Calcutta, 28 November 1800Google Scholar [BL. Banks Letters, Add. MSS, 33980, 255–6]. Roxburgh, to Smith, , Cape of Good Hope, 23 April 1798 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Buchanan, to Hamilton, John, London, 21 January 1807 [SRO, GD 161/18/-].Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Extract Public Letter to Bengal, 7 January 1807 [IOR, Board's Collections, ibid.]. The Botanic Garden began as a ‘nursery’ in 1787 but with Roxburgh it had grown into a scientific establishment. Under Wallich the botanical work of the Garden was greatly reduced: Burkhill, , History of Botany in India, pp. 102–8.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Extract Public Letter to Bengal, 7 January 1807 [IOR, Board's Collection, 1808–1809, vol. 260 (5681–5818), no. 5707].

⁸⁰ Buchanan to James Cobb, Esq. Secretary East India House, 1815 (n.d.) [SRO, GD 161/19/2].

⁸¹ The Minto Papers contain a Memo on the ‘Origin, Progress and Present State of the Geometrical and Statistical Survey of Mysore to July 1st 1807’ [NLS, Minto Papers, MS, 11722–3, f. 1–11]. Minto himself would have seen some of Mackenzie's work for he spent two weeks in Madras in June 1807 before going on to Calcutta and his son John Elliott had been stationed there as a writer since 1805: Lord Minto in India, Life and Letters of Gilbert Elliott, First Earl of Minto, from 1807–1814, ed. by his Great Niece, , the Countess of Minto (London, Longman, Green & Co., 1880), pp. 15–17.Google Scholar

⁸² Colebrooke, R. to ‘My Dear Henry’, Sierora, 24 September 1807 [SRO, GD 161/ 19/3]. This letter is contained in Buchanan's papers and so it is reasonable to suppose that Minto passed the information on to Buchanan. Henry is probably Colebrooke's first cousin—Henry Thomas who at this time sat on the Governor-General's Council.Google Scholar

⁸³ Buchanan to James Cobb Esq. Secretary East India House [No date; 1815 the letter is in draft form: SRO, GD 161/19/2].

⁸⁴ ‘My employment will be perfectly constant with my hobby horse’ he wrote to his brother Hamilton, John, 10 February 1807, Portsmouth, [SRO, GD 161/18/-].Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Brown, T., Chief Sec. Bengal Government, to Buchanan, Fort William, 11 September 1807. [IOR, Board's Collections, 1808–09, vol. 260 (5681–5818, no. 5707].Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Buchanan, to Secretary, Bengal Government, Nathur, 28 June 1810; attached is Minto's note of consent [IOR, Bengal Public Consultations, 20 July 1810, 1810/Z/P/ 580].Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Buchanan, to Smith, , no location given, 1 February 1811 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Buchanan, to Minto, Lord, Gualpara, 14 November 1808 [NLS, Minto Papers, MS, 11722, f. 33]. Permission refused, presumably due to the turbulence of that region.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Hamilton, Francis, ‘Some Notices Concerning the Plants of Various Parts of India’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 10, 1826, pp. 181, 182, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid., p. 183.

⁹² Draft of a letter by Buchanan to an unnamed person, Patna, 23 October 1812 [SRO, GD 161/19/3]; Buchanan, to Smith, , Gopalpur, 17 November 1813 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁹³ Prain, , ‘A Sketch’ p. xxi.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Buchanan, to Smith, , Gopalpur, 17 November 1813 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

⁹⁵ The unabridged version of Buchanan's report on Purnea district was published by the Bihar and Orissa Research Society: of 596 pages 145 dealt with some aspect of Natural History (plant, animals, agri-products and minerals).

⁹⁶ Buchanan, Francis in Martin, Robert Montgomery (ed.), The History, Antiquities, Topography and Statistics of Eastern India (reprint, Cosmo Pub., Delhi, 1976, thereafter referred to as Eastern India), vol. 2, Bhagalpur pp. 211, 106Google Scholar; Buchanan, Francis, An Account of the Districts of Bihar and Patna in 1811–1812 (Patna, Bihar and Orissa Research Society, 19?), vol. 2, p. 450.Google ScholarBuchanan, Francis, An Account of the District of Purnea in 1809–1810 (Patna, Bihar & Orissa Research Society, 1928), pp. 378–82.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ For the correspondence between Buchanan and the Bengal Government see SRO, GD, 16/19/5.

⁹⁸ Oldham notes that ‘there was no published description or record of the sites of interest in Shahabad prior to Buchanan's visit’: Oldham, C. E. A. W., ‘Introduction’, Journals of Francis Buchanan Kept During the Survey of the District of Shahabad in 1812–1813 (Patna, Govt of Bihar and Orissa, 1926), p. v and pp. x–xi.Google Scholar Henry Thomas Colebrooke followed Buchanan's discoveries very closely and in the 1820s began to translate the rock inscriptions which Buchanan had recorded: Papers read by Colebrooke, H. T. on 4 December 1824Google Scholar and 18 November 1826 in Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1827), vol. 1, no. XI, pp. 201–7 and no. XXVIII, pp. 520–3Google Scholar. Buchanan subsequently read two papers on his discoveries in Bihar: on 2 December 1826 in ibid., vol. I, no. XXIX, pp. 531–40 and on 5 May 1827 in ibid. (London, 1830), vol. II, no. II, pp. 40–52.

⁹⁹ For example, he did not find the old city of Rajagriha because he believed that the site he was shown was totally unsuitable for such a city: Jackson, V. H., ‘Introduction’, Journal of Francis Buchanan Kept During the Survey of the Districts of Patna and Gaya in 1811–1812 (Patna, Govt of Bihar and Orissa, 1925), p. x.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Buchanan, to an unnamed person, Patna, 23 October 1812 [SRO, GD 161/19/3].Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Taxonomy even today continues to depend largely on textual analysis and comparison: see Heywood, V. H., Plant Taxonomy, Studies in Biology, no. 5, 2nd edn (London, E. Arnold, 1979).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Sir William Jones appealed for the study of Indian Plants: ‘… unless we can discover the Sanscrit names of all celebrated vegetables, we shall neither comprehend allusions which Indian poets perpetually make to them, nor (what is far worse), be able to find accounts of their tried virtues in the writings of Indian physicians’. Jones, who had read the Hortus Malabaricus, pointed out that van Rheede knew nothing of Sanskrit and that his three Brahmin assistants knew the language ‘very imperfectly’: ‘The Tenth Anniversary Discourse, 28 February 1793’, Asiatic Researches 4th edn, (London, 1807), vol. 4, p. xxxi.Google Scholar In the same volume by SirJones, W. see also ‘A Catalogue of Indian Plants’ pp. 225–9Google Scholar and ‘Botanical Observations on Select Indian Plants’ pp. 231–303.Google Scholar H. T. Colebrooke was interested in Indian botany for similar reasons: SirColebrooke, T. E., The Life of H. T. Colebrooke, By His Son (Trübner & Co., London, 1873), pp. 266–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ SRO, GD 16/19/6 for numerous letters covering the period July–October 1814 to Buchanan from J. Adam, Sec. to Bengal Govt. and Major General J. S. Wood. Buchanan also gave advice on the best route for the British invasion of Nepal.

¹⁰⁴ Buchanan, to Brown, Thomas, Chief Sec. Bengal Government, Calcutta, 13 September 1807Google Scholar; Acting Surveyor General to Chief Sec. to Bengal Govt., William, Fort, 28th September 1807Google Scholar; Extract Bengal Public Consultations, 23 October 1807: [IOR, Board's Collections 1808–09, vol. 260 (5681–5818), no. 5707]. My understanding of the preparations made by Buchanan for his survey departs very considerably from Jackson's: Jackson, V. H., ‘Introduction’ (see n. 99), pp. xi–xii.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Oldham, C. E. A. W., ‘Introduction’, Journal of Francis Buchanan Kept During the Survey of the District of Bhagalpur in 1810–1811 (Patna, Govt. of Bihar and Orissa, 1930), p. xiii.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Prain, , ‘A Sketch’, lxi.Google Scholar Since Prain wrote there has been a renewed interest in Rheede and Rumphius and so Buchanan's commentaries are no longer regarded as a ‘thankless task’ which dissipated the energies of ‘a writer of Hamilton's calibre’.

¹⁰⁷ Cullen, M. J., The Statistical Movement in Early Victorian Britain, the Foundations of Empirical Social Research (New York, Harvester Press, 1975, pp. 10–11).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ SirSinclair, John, ‘History of the Origin and Progress of the Statistical Account of Scotland’ Appendix F: in The Statistical Account of Scotland (Edinburgh, William Creech, 1798), vol. 20, p. xiii.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Ibid.

¹¹⁰ SirSinclair, John, Analysis of the Statistical Account of Scotland (1st pub. in 1825 by Arch. Constable & Co., Edinburgh, reprint 1970, London, Johnston Reprint Corporation), vol. 1, p. 5.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid., pp. 1–2; pp. 59–63; and frontispiece showing a diagram representing ‘The Pyramid of Statistical Enquiry’.

¹¹² SirSinclair, John, ‘History of the Origin and Progress of the Statistical Account of Scotland’, Appendix B, Fifth Circular Letter to the Clergy, 25 May 1790, pp. xviii–xxxv.Google Scholar

¹¹³ SirSinclair, John, Analysis of the Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. 2, ‘Conclusion’, p. 225.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ There were a number of direct links between Sinclair's work and Buchanan's. Henry Dundas (President of the Board of Control) had supported Sinclair's project at a critical point—see SirSinclair, John, ‘History of the Origin and Progress of the Statistical Account of Scotland’, p. xvi and Appendix D, pp. xxxvii–xxxix.Google Scholar Buchanan himself was aware of Sinclair's project because his family featured in it: Rev. MrRobertson, James, ‘Parish of Callender’, pp. 576, 585, 606 and 611.Google Scholar And given Lord Minto's intellectual curiosity the Governor-General could not have failed to be familiar with Sinclair's controversial project.

¹¹⁵ Buchanan, Francis, An Account of the District of Purnea in 1809–10, pp. 146–7Google Scholar; Buchanan, Francis in Martin, (ed.) Eastern India, vol. 5, Ronggopur, pp. 492–3.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Buchanan, to Minto, , Gualpara, 14 November 1808 [NLS. MS. 11722, f. 33].Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Buchanan, Francis in Martin, (ed.), Eastern India, vol. 2. Bhagalpur, p. 42.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Buchanan, to Brown, Thomas, Secretary to the Bengal Government, Calcutta, 13 September 1807Google Scholar [IOR, Board's Collections, 1808–09, vol. 260 (5681–5818), no. 5707]. Buchanan's fears for his life were well founded because ‘… it appears at first mortifying to the English administration of these provinces, that our oldest possession should be the worst amongst the evils of lawless violence’, quoted in Lord Minto in India, pp. 185–6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ For example, on one occasion he shared his brandy with a highland chief who was being hunted for theft: Buchanan, to Hamilton, John Gualpore, 1 August 1808 [SRO, GD 161/18/-].Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Buchanan, Francis, An Account of the District of Pumea in 1809–1810, pp. 126–8.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Cohn, Bernard S., ‘Notes on the History of the Study of Indian Society and Culture’, in Singer, Milton and Cohn, Bernard S. (eds), Stucture and Change in Indian Society (Chicago, Aldine Pub. Co., 1960), p. 15.Google Scholar

¹²² Graeme Davison adds a third factor—egotism. See ‘A Life without Egotism: James Phillips Kay and the Manchester Cotton Lords: 1828–1835’, Paper at the Australian Modern British History Association Conference, May 1981.

¹²³ Buchanan, to Minto, Lord, Gualpara, 1 July 1808 [NLS, Minto Papers, MS. 11722, f. 31].Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Buchanan's intentions about the future are known from his letters to his sister, his brother and his banker. See SRO, GD 161/18/-.

¹²⁵ Fleming, John to Buchanan, , Chowringhee, 30 November 1811 [SRO, GD 161/19/4].Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Buchanan to James Cobb, Esq. Secretary East India House, n.d. 1815(?) [SRO, GD 161/19/2].

¹²⁷ Buchanan, became Superintendent on 14 November 1814Google Scholar (Colebrooke, H. to Sec. Bengal Govt, 14 November 1814 in IOR, BPC 13 Dec. 1814, No. 43). The next month he requested leave (Minute of the Vice President, IOR, BPC, 23 Dec. 1814, no. 1), and in Feburuary 1815 he left India for ever.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Wallich, Nathaniel (1786–1854)Google Scholar was thirty years old when he assumed control of the Garden and he remained in charge until 1841. He had a long, easy and productive career. It never occurred to the Company that Wallich be asked to complete Buchanan's survey of Bengal because he simply lacked the talent for such a complex task. Some years later the Company allowed Wallich to live in London for two years and paid maintenance in order that he publish his work: Hardwicke, Thomas to Buchanan, , Clapham, 20 November 1822 [SRO, GD, 161/19/4].Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Towards the end of 1814 he caught a catarrhal fever. Only a year before he had crowed: ‘my constitution seems case hardened against all weather’ Buchanan, to Smith, , Gopalpur, 17 November 1813 [LS. Smith Collection]. Indeed, he had had remarkably few illnesses during his years in India the exception being another instance of fever, inflammation of the eyes, and boils.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ On his brother's death he inherited the debts of the estate, about £15,000 according to Chambers, Robert, op. cit., p. 395.Google Scholar

¹³¹ Constable & Co. took four years to publish Fishes in the Ganges. The delay was so great that Naturalists began to wonder whether Buchanan had given up the project. For the angry words Buchanan addressed to Constable see: NLS, MSS, 682-f. 117, 790-pp. 64, 304, 428; 791-pp. 263, 289, 292, 474, 477.

¹³² Trotter, A. to Buchanan, , Calcutta, 14 January 1815 and 31 January 1815 [SRO, GD 161/19/5]. Moira seems to have been advised by James Hare, who acted temporarily as Buchanan's replacement. In a later letter (dated 27 July 1816) Hare gives a full explanation of why the drawings need to be kept in India: IOR, Board's Collections, no. 13709, 1818/19). Prain did not have access to these official letters and thus speculated at length about Buchanan's ‘betrayal’.Google Scholar

¹³³ Buchanan, to Trotter, , Botanic Garden, 18 February 1815 [SRO, GD 161/19/5] and Draft of a letter by Buchanan to James Cobb, Sec., East India House, n.d. 1815(?) [SRO, GD 161/19/5].Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Buchanan, to Smith, , Callender, 27 October 1815 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

¹³⁵ At least one India House official described the Company's letter of acknowledgement as ‘very cold—not such as I think he deserved in reply to so liberal an offer as he made’: Alan, A. to an unnamed recipient, East India House, 14 February 1816 [SRO, GD 161/19/2].Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Buchanan, to Wallich, , Callender, 17 July 1816 and another letter Callender, 4 February 1817 [BMNH, Buchanan's Letters to Roxburgh and Wallich].Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Buchanan, to Wallich, , Leny, 16 October 1821Google Scholar. [BMNH, ibid.], and Prain, ‘A Sketch’.

¹³⁸ Buchanan, to Wallich, , Callender, 4 February 1817Google Scholar [BMNH, ibid.].

¹³⁹ The subject matter of Genealogies of the Hindus did not make Buchanan sensitive about his own status as Beveridge thought, but the peculiar circumstances in which it was published alerts us to its symbolic purpose for Buchanan. Buchanan's preoccupation with his public image pursued him to the end, and in the very year of his death he published a claim to his Scottish pedigree. Beveridge, H., ‘The Buchanan Records’, The Calcutta Review, no. 197 (07 1894), p. 4Google Scholar; Claim of Dr. Francis Buchanan, Buchanan of Spittal (Edinburgh, James Larke & Co., 1826) [BL. 9902 i 22].Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ There are 29 of these letters in the Scottish Record Office, GD 161/17/MISC.

¹⁴¹ See for example Dr Hooker to Buchanan, Glasgow, 18 March 1829 [SRO, GD 161/19/4]

¹⁴² Buchanan, to Smith, , Leny, 23 July 1820Google Scholar; 8 September 1820 [LS, Smith Collection]. George Eberhard Rumphius (c. 1627–1702), Resident and Chief Merchant of the Dutch East India Company at Amboin, was Rheede's contemporary. His Herbarium Amboinense like the Hortus Malabaricus, contains botanical types. Most of the plants relate specifically to South East Asia but many of them come from a much wider geographical area. For a history of Rumphius see De Wit, H. C. D. (ed.), Rumphius Memorial Volume (U.D.H., Baarn, 1959), ch. 1Google Scholar; Merrill, E. D., An Interpretation of Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense (Manila, Bureau of Printing, 1917)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Introduction; Drvan Steenis, C. G. G. T. (ed.), Flora Malesiana (Noordhoff-Kolff, Djakarta, 1950), vol. 1, pp. 452–3.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ According to Gage the Linnean Society of London had become so ‘lethargic’ by 1820 that there was nothing much to do but listen to a reading of Buchanan's Commentaries: Gage, , History of the Linnean Society, pp. 113–14.Google Scholar The Society did not, however, publish more than the first four parts of the Commentary on the Hortus Malabaricus, the last in 1837. Manuscripts for parts 5 to 12 are stored at EUL, DC.1. 71–72, 2 vols.

¹⁴⁴ Prain, , ‘A Sketch’, p. lxxii.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Merrill, , Rumphius's Herbarium Amboinense, ‘Introduction’. Of Buchanan's work Merrill writes that the Commentaries ‘are of considerable interest and value’, p. 35.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Manilal, K. S., Suresh, C. R. and Sivarajan, V. V., ‘A Reinvestigation of the Plants Described in Rheede's “Hortus Malabaricus”—An Introductory Report’, Taxon (11 1977), pp. 549–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁷ The importance of Buchanan's Commentaries is recognized outside India by botanists like Mabberley, D. J.: see his ‘Francis Hamilton's Commentaries with Particular Reference to Meliaceae’, Taxon, vol. 26, no. 5/6 (11 1977), pp. 523–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Buchanan, to Smith, , Calcutta, 15 November 1797 [LS, Smith Collection].Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ SirHooker, Joseph, A Sketch of the Flora of British India (London, HMSO, 1904), p. 2.Google Scholar