The Mahabharata of
Krishna-Dwaipayana
Vyasa
BOOK 1
ADI PARVA
Translated into English Prose from
the Original Sanskrit Text
by
Kisari Mohan Ganguli
[1883-1896]
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
The object
of a translator should ever be to hold the mirror up to his author. That being
so, his chief duty is to represent so far as practicable the manner in which
his author's ideas have been expressed, retaining, if possible, at the
sacrifice of idiom and taste all the peculiarities of his author's imagery and
of language as well. In regard to translations from the Sanskrit, nothing is
easier than to dish up Hindu ideas, so as to make them agreeable to English
taste. But the endeavour of the present translator has been to give in the
following pages as literal a rendering as possible of the great work of Vyasa.
To the purely English reader there is much in the following pages that will
strike as ridiculous. Those unacquainted with any language but their own are
generally very exclusive in matters of taste. Having no knowledge of models
other than what they meet with in their own tongue, the standard they have
formed of purity and taste in composition must necessarily be a narrow one. The
translator, however, would ill-discharge his duty, if for the sake of avoiding
ridicule, he sacrificed fidelity to the original. He must represent his author
as he is, not as he should be to please the narrow taste of those entirely
unacquainted with him. Mr. Pickford, in the preface to his English translation
of the Mahavira Charita, ably defends a close adherence to the original even at
the sacrifice of idiom and taste against the claims of what has been called
'Free Translation,' which means dressing the author in an outlandish garb to
please those to whom he is introduced.
In
the preface to his classical translation of Bhartrihari's Niti Satakam and
Vairagya Satakam, Mr. C.H. Tawney says, "I am sensible that in the present
attempt I have retained much local colouring. For instance, the ideas of worshipping
the feet of a god of great men, though it frequently occurs in Indian
literature, will undoubtedly move the laughter of Englishmen unacquainted with
Sanskrit, especially if they happen to belong to that class of readers who
revel their attention on the accidental and remain blind to the essential. But
a certain measure of fidelity to the original even at the risk of making
oneself ridiculous, is better than the studied dishonesty which characterises
so many translations of oriental poets."
We fully
subscribe to the above although, it must be observed, the censure conveyed to
the class of translators last indicated is rather undeserved, there being
nothing like a 'studied dishonesty' in their efforts which proceed only from a
mistaken view of their duties and as such betray only an error of the head but
not of the heart. More than twelve years ago when Babu Pratapa Chandra Roy,
with Babu Durga Charan Banerjee, went to my retreat at Seebpore, for engaging
me to translate the Mahabharata into English, I was amazed with the grandeur of
the scheme. My first question to him was,--whence was the money to come,
supposing my competence for the task. Pratapa then unfolded to me the details
of his plan, the hopes he could legitimately cherish of assistance from
different quarters. He was full of enthusiasm. He showed me Dr. Rost's letter,
which, he said, had suggested to him the undertaking. I had known Babu Durga
Charan for many years and I had the highest opinion of his scholarship and
practical good sense. When he warmly took Pratapa's side for convincing me of
the practicability of the scheme, I listened to him patiently. The two were for
completing all arrangements with me the very day. To this I did not agree. I
took a week's time to consider. I consulted some of my literary friends,
foremost among whom was the late lamented Dr. Sambhu C. Mookherjee. The latter,
I found, had been waited upon by Pratapa. Dr. Mookherjee spoke to me of Pratapa
as a man of indomitable energy and perseverance. The result of my conference
with Dr. Mookherjee was that I wrote to Pratapa asking him to see me again. In
this second interview estimates were drawn up, and everything was arranged as
far as my portion of the work was concerned. My friend left with me a specimen
of translation which he had received from Professor Max Muller. This I began to
study, carefully comparing it sentence by sentence with the original. About its
literal character there could be no doubt, but it had no flow and, therefore,
could not be perused with pleasure by the general reader. The translation had
been executed thirty years ago by a young German friend of the great Pundit. I
had to touch up every sentence. This I did without at all impairing
faithfulness to the original. My first 'copy' was set up in type and a dozen
sheets were struck off. These were submitted to the judgment of a number of
eminent writers, European and native. All of them, I was glad to see, approved
of the specimen, and then the task of translating the Mahabharata into English seriously
began.
Before,
however, the first fasciculus could be issued, the question as to whether the
authorship of the translation should be publicly owned, arose. Babu Pratapa
Chandra Roy was against anonymity. I was for it. The reasons I adduced were
chiefly founded upon the impossibility of one person translating the whole of
the gigantic work. Notwithstanding my resolve to discharge to the fullest
extent the duty that I took up, I might not live to carry it out. It would take
many years before the end could be reached. Other circumstances than death
might arise in consequence of which my connection with the work might cease. It
could not be desirable to issue successive fasciculus with the names of a
succession of translators appearing on the title pages. These and other
considerations convinced my friend that, after all, my view was correct.
It was,
accordingly, resolved to withhold the name of the translator. As a compromise,
however, between the two views, it was resolved to issue the first fasciculus
with two prefaces, one over the signature of the publisher and the other
headed--'Translator's Preface.' This, it was supposed, would effectually guard
against misconceptions of every kind. No careful reader would then confound the
publisher with the author.
Although
this plan was adopted, yet before a fourth of the task had been accomplished,
an influential Indian journal came down upon poor Pratapa Chandra Roy and
accused him openly of being a party to a great literary imposture, viz., of
posing before the world as the translator of Vyasa's work when, in fact, he was
only the publisher. The charge came upon my friend as a surprise, especially as
he had never made a secret of the authorship in his correspondence with
Oriental scholars in every part of the world. He promptly wrote to the journal
in question, explaining the reasons there were for anonymity, and pointing to
the two prefaces with which the first fasciculus had been given to the world.
The editor readily admitted his mistake and made a satisfactory apology.
Now that
the translation has been completed, there can no longer be any reason for
withholding the name of the translator. The entire translation is practically
the work of one hand. In portions of the Adi and the Sabha Parvas, I was
assisted by Babu Charu Charan Mookerjee. About four forms of the Sabha Parva
were done by Professor Krishna Kamal Bhattacharya, and about half a fasciculus
during my illness, was done by another hand. I should however state that before
passing to the printer the copy received from these gentlemen, I carefully
compared every sentence with the original, making such alterations as were
needed for securing a uniformity of style with the rest of the work.
I should
here observe that in rendering the Mahabharata into English I have derived very
little aid from the three Bengali versions that are supposed to have been
executed with care. Every one of these is full of inaccuracies and blunders of
every description. The Santi in particular which is by far the most difficult
of the eighteen Parvas, has been made a mess of by the Pundits that attacked
it. Hundreds of ridiculous blunders can be pointed out in both the Rajadharma
and the Mokshadharma sections. Some of these I have pointed out in footnotes.
I cannot
lay claim to infallibility. There are verses in the Mahabharata that are
exceedingly difficult to construe. I have derived much aid from the great
commentator Nilakantha. I know that Nilakantha's authority is not incapable of
being challenged. But when it is remembered that the interpretations given by
Nilakantha came down to him from preceptors of olden days, one should think
twice before rejecting Nilakantha as a guide.
About the
readings I have adopted, I should say that as regards the first half of the work,
I have generally adhered to the Bengal texts; as regards the latter half, to
the printed Bombay edition. Sometimes individual sections, as occurring in the
Bengal editions, differ widely, in respect of the order of the verses, from the
corresponding ones in the Bombay edition. In such cases I have adhered to the
Bengal texts, convinced that the sequence of ideas has been better preserved in
the Bengal editions than the Bombay one.
I should
express my particular obligations to Pundit Ram Nath Tarkaratna, the author of
'Vasudeva Vijayam' and other poems, Pundit Shyama Charan Kaviratna, the learned
editor of Kavyaprakasha with the commentary of Professor Mahesh Chandra
Nayaratna, and Babu Aghore Nath Banerjee, the manager of the Bharata Karyalaya.
All these scholars were my referees on all points of difficulty. Pundit Ram
Nath's solid scholarship is known to them that have come in contact with him. I
never referred to him a difficulty that he could not clear up. Unfortunately,
he was not always at hand to consult. Pundit Shyama Charan Kaviratna, during my
residence at Seebpore, assisted me in going over the Mokshadharma sections of
the Santi Parva. Unostentatious in the extreme, Kaviratna is truly the type of
a learned Brahman of ancient India. Babu Aghore Nath Banerjee also has from time
to time, rendered me valuable assistance in clearing my difficulties.
Gigantic as
the work is, it would have been exceedingly difficult for me to go on with it
if I had not been encouraged by Sir Stuart Bayley, Sir Auckland Colvin, Sir
Alfred Croft, and among Oriental scholars, by the late lamented Dr. Reinhold
Rost, and Mons. A. Barth of Paris. All these eminent men know from the
beginning that the translation was proceeding from my pen. Notwithstanding the
enthusiasm, with which my poor friend, Pratapa Chandra Roy, always endeavoured
to fill me. I am sure my energies would have flagged and patience exhausted but
for the encouraging words which I always received from these patrons and
friends of the enterprise.
Lastly, I
should name my literary chief and friend, Dr. Sambhu C. Mookherjee. The kind
interest he took in my labours, the repeated exhortations he addressed to me
inculcating patience, the care with which he read every fasciculus as it came
out, marking all those passages which threw light upon topics of antiquarian
interest, and the words of praise he uttered when any expression particularly
happy met his eyes, served to stimulate me more than anything else in going on
with a task that sometimes seemed to me endless.
Kisari Mohan Ganguli
Calcutta
0 Comments
If you have any Misunderstanding Please let me know