Man-handling of Savitri

A Matter of Judgement: About Path/Faith

One may have faith in the script but see not the path; also one may know the path but follow it not with faith. Which one to accept? to go by the path or by the faith? The best is to have both together. However, that seems to be the conundrum in regard to an entry in the context of editing Savitri. The entry appears in a passage on page 146, The Book of the Traveller of the Worlds, The Kingdoms of the Little Life, Book Two Canto Four, Section 41 in the series of 159 sections making up the epic. In the earlier drafts, in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand, the word in a line is distinctly “path”; but in the draft in which the revision by dictation was made it could be read as “faith”. In this draft there are two verbal changes by dictation in the same line. Subsequent drafts by dictation consistently carry the word “faith” along with those two verbal changes. These successive drafts with “faith” were read out to the author and they had undergone several developments afterward; one could therefore justifiably argue that the original “path”need not have any bearing or relevance in the light of these redraftings with considerable additions of new lines and passages. But it is necessary to have access to the original manuscripts, it is desirable that these be made available for a detailed comprehensive study, that nothing significant is missed. However, in the meanwhile, let us first summarise the relevant text as it appears in the first edition which came out in September 1950 before Sri Aurobindo’s withdrawal in December that year, putting the seal of his presence and 'approval' on it.

Section 41 of Savitri, pp. 141-46, describes a type of life which is fierier but half-real half-dream, a life born of thinking sense. It is actually a seeking Power that found out its road to form, and built it with great skill, built it with the ingredients of love and joy and pain. In war and clasp there life-wants joined the All-Life. Arming its creatures with delight and hope, a half-awakened Nescience struggled to know the outside of things, know them by sight and touch only. It seemed that that could be the way for the dim being to grow in light and force, and at last rise to his higher destiny, at last look up to God. So must he learn by failure, must progress by fall, and by suffering discover his deep soul, and by possession grow to his own vasts. Half-way she the half-awakened Nescience, she the half-conscious Force, stopped and found her faith no more. In spite of all her struggle and striving nothing was achieved. It seemed the circle of her force was completed, but she had beaten out only the sparks of ignorance, only the life could think and not the mind, only the sense could feel and not the soul, only was lit some heat of the flame of Life, some joy to be, a few rapturous leaps of sense. All was simply an impetus of half-conscious Force. However, behind all moved supernal Bliss, now an obscure inhabitant of the world’s blind core, an unborn godhead’s will, a mute desire. Here is the final relevant 1950-text containing the line under discussion, “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. (pp. 144-46)

So must the dim being grow in light and force
And rise to his higher destiny at last,
Look up to God and round at the universe,
And learn by failure and progress by fall
And battle with environment and doom,
By suffering discover his deep soul
And by possession grow to his own vasts.

Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more.

Still nothing was achieved but to begin,
Yet finished seemed the circle of her force.

If wehave it right, we could say that Nirodbaran had read out to Sri Aurobindo the manuscript-line “Half-way it stopped and found its faith no more”, with “faith” and not with “path”, and it is at that stage that by revision it became “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. It ismaintained that the previous drafts have clearly in them the word “path”, and it is that which the Revised Edition accepted, thus replacing the 'misread-miscopied' “faith”that existed in all the earlier editions of Savitri. The Revised Edition (1993) holds that, what we have in Sri Aurobindo’s own hand in the earlier drafts is “path” and it is that which should be taken as the textually correct reading; it is also indicated that it was the scribe who made it “faith” and hence has no validity in any sense. It was the scribe’s “creative participation” in the composition of Savitri, and is therefore not justifiable. The present case itself makes a good point about these issues. It will be naïve to say that the Yogi-Poet was oblivious to the working realities that were there around him; Sri Aurobindo had indeed made them a part of his compositional procedure. This should mean that all that got assimilated, all became a part of the composition. Here is a portion of the manuscript containing the line “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”—second line in the blown-up photocopy. From the way the word is written, the scribe seems to be quite justified in taking it as “faith”. But it is said that the previous drafts have clearly in them “path”, and it is that which the Revised Edition insists to have in the corrected Savitri-text; it maintains that “faith” as present in all the earlier editions is due to misreading-miscopying. Nirodbaran read the line as “Half-way it stopped and found its faith no more”. Surely, only after the line in this form was read out to Sri Aurobindo, did he redo it, changed “it” to “she” and “its” to “her”; he had least compunction in dealing with somebody else’s “faith” which his scribe had in plenty. In fact it will be pointless also to argue that the poet had forgotten his own “path”, the one that existed quite some time ago, and perhaps in some other situation. If it was a contribution of the assistant, if it was a “creative participation” of his, then we must say that it was creatively assimilated into the structure by the creator, thus absolving him of this sin to have changed his original; this assimilation also could be the author’s prerogative. Why should we then have hesitation in accepting what was accepted by him? why question his prerogative? This becomes particularlystriking when it takes procedurally a natural form. It is also necessary to realize that the earlier tentative drafts, pretty raw in their nature, provisional in character, had undergone such large changes due to revisions, revisions at every stage, including changes in the last set of proofs, that in the later contexts they lose to a considerable extent their former compelling relevance. Every time the passage was taken up for revision, and perhaps it happened at least three times, the line was read out as “Half-way she stopped and found her faith no more”. We should also assert that, compared with the previous versions, the text took quite a different shape by the time it reached the 1950-stage, the one which came out during the time of the author himself. In fact, the question that should be asked now is: What Sri Aurobindo had retained in full definiteness and responsiveness, can that at all be set aside by us? It will prove to be a kind of dogmatic faithfulness if one is to do that; it will be too mechanical a manner of editing the text that itself evolved in so living and dynamic a fashion. One has to be perceptive to the totality of these aspects. If one has to be really truthful, one should go by the last printed text which came out during the author’s own lifetime. For research or scholarly study a detailed background note summarizing the entire development, accompanied by the relevant material, should be made available, the facility extended meaningfully,made available employing appropriate helpfulpractices. The archival library should provide all the necessaryassistance and supportfor such researches. The hope is that it will happen one day. Such a facility should be an Open Resources library accessible to all genuine researchers pursuing studies in different ways. It is unfortunate that no background details about path/faith are given in the Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri; to a general reader there is no way of knowing the authenticity of either, and he is told to simply accept what is given. We might follow the setup of, for instance, Niels Bohr Archive established in Copenhagen a couple of decades ago. It should also be emphasized that the organization of an archives facility and the editing works on the basis of the archival material are two distinct functions. This aspect seems to be absent in the present system of ours. Indeed, any research work done in any research institute, andthat should include the Archives here, becomes acceptable only when it gets reviewed by the peer groups. Until then it remains merely an opinion, though perhaps with an official stamp on it; if it is simply going to be that, it will lack the desirable credibility. The Revised Edition of Savitri certainly suffers in that respect.

Finally, let me mention here something that happened about a decade ago, when the Savitri-case was going on in the Court. One Sunday morning we’d a breakfast meeting in Nirodbaran’s room downstairs. The four present were: Nirodbaran, Mangesh Nadkarni, Manoj Das Gupta, and myself. The issue was, about the necessity of revising Savitri. When Manoj Das Gupta asked Nadkarni, his reply was: “As far as I’m concerned, it would not matter for me if it was this edition or that.” I was stunned, and told how can one accept an edition which tries to read “Sri Aurobindo’s intentions” and which speaks of slips of various kind on the part of Sri Aurobindo himself. And then the usual arguments followed, forgetting that Part One of Savitri had come out during the lifetime of Sri Aurobindo and the manuscript for printing Parts Two and Three in another volume presumably must have gone to the Press before his passing away in December 1950; this volume bears the date May 1951. We could attach to it what the Mother had disdainfully told Amal on 10 April 1954: “At most you may write a Publisher's Note to say: 'We poor blind ignorant human beings think Sri Aurobindo did not intend certain things to be the final version. And we are giving our opinion for what it may be worth.'" Her disappointment cannot be more telling than this.