Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

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

Contents

[edit] 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". [1] [2] 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)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Other non-royal names lists the current conventions followed on this. Timrollpickering 16:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)
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:[[3]]. 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)