Summing up the preceding remarks, it may be stated that—
Firstly, we have already adduced proofs to show how scrupulously careful Csoma’s critical mind was not to run into philological or any other speculations. He guards himself very distinctly against such when he says, “I was much perplexed by Dr. Gerard’s letter to me. In my answer I would not enter into the wide field of speculation.”[12] Henry Torrens speaks of it,[13] and Dr. Malan is very positive on the subject[14] when he says, “Csoma did not scrutinise the intricacies of hypotheses; he had too much sense for that.”
Secondly, no proof can be found anywhere among Csoma’s writings of his having searched after a people in Asia “speaking the Magyar tongue.” Such a theory may have been propounded by idle literary speculators or elated enthusiasts on his behalf, as was recently done in Count Béla Széchényi’s case, but a childlike chimera of the sort cannot be laid to his charge unless proof positive exists that he enunciated such an opinion and design, and persevered in it to the end.
Thirdly, the position of the Hungarian tongue in reference to the Finnish, the Ugric, and the Turko-tatar dialects is far from being settled yet by the philologists. Moreover, Csoma’s studies and labours moved in an entirely different philological and ethnographical sphere from that to which these several dialects belong. No critic who was not able to pay due attention to a field of research on which Csoma laboured, namely, the Indian, the Sanskrit, and the Tibetan languages, could be expected to understand and to appreciate his ideas, motives, and conclusions as they deserve, nor yet claim the right to pronounce final judgment upon his merits. Nevertheless, an opinion stands on record that Csoma’s philological views are not considered by his countrymen as “deserving [[159]]serious consideration.”[15] But this is only in the Finnish and Turko-tatar direction, in which the special studies of these critics lay, being quite distinct from those of Csoma, which, by the way, have not as yet been inquired into by them. It is not fair towards a thoroughgoing student such as Csoma was to treat his labours in an off-hand manner, and to misinterpret the tendency of his thoughtful conclusions.
Csoma was filled, as every earnest investigator should be, with a never-flagging devotion to his object; but he was not a dreamer, as some of his least-informed critics seem to wish to suggest that he was. All his philological deductions were based on carefully selected data, which he always adduced.
Impelled by a noble devotion to historical and philological science, he set out unaided on his solitary journey to the East, endeavouring to penetrate into the northern parts of the Chinese Empire, especially into Mongolia and the surrounding countries, his sole object being to study, from a Hungarian point of view, several yet unsolved ethnological and historical problems, hoping that his labours generally might be found useful by posterity, whose appreciation he looked for as his only reward. As long as life was spared him he remained faithful to this purpose, worthy to be followed up still by any one really competent for the task.
Step by step, cautiously and with deliberation for two-and-twenty years, he directed his efforts among difficulties which would have driven a less heroic mind to despair, and yet with a modesty and ready self-sacrifice quite exceptional. When we consider the physical difficulties alone, we find that Csoma traversed greater distances than did any other traveller before him or since under similar circumstances.
The memory of Körösi’s uncomplaining endurance, unselfishness, and modesty will ever remain recorded [[160]]among the pioneers of philology, and be cherished with gratitude in his native land.
What other tribute indeed but that of admiration and reverence could be rendered to such a labourer!
Even among the people and the high ecclesiastics of Tibet the fame of the Hungarian scholar lived for many years after him. The name of “Philangi Dàsa,” the European disciple, as he was affectionately called there, has been mentioned with appreciation to Dr. Leitner, who in 1866 had an interview at Pukdal with the Abbot of the Monastery in which Csoma lived. Judging from Dr. Leitner’s report, we find that Csoma’s sympathetic individuality left a lasting impression behind him, and when the Tibetans heard that Leitner was a fellow-countryman of Csoma’s, he was received with every mark of attention, and the Abbot offered to conduct Dr. Leitner safely to Lassa, leaving, if desired, his two sons as hostages in the hands of the Government. As, however, Dr. Leitner was not prepared to accept the unlooked-for offer, the Abbot was willing to extend it to any other European who may be actuated by the same love and devotion to philological researches as Csoma had been.