Man-handling of Savitri

Extracts from Jugal Kishore Mukherjee’s Letters

[Let us take one specific example from Jugal Mukherjee’s several letters pertaining to Savitri-corrections.His letter dated 24 April-1 May 1988is a 50-page single-spaced typescript running into several sections, and is titled Some Final Observations on the Table of Corrections. We shall takehere one of itsparts just by way of illustration to get an idea of his objections and concerns regarding the new Savitri-editing.]

In justification of what I have been doing during the last 7 or 8 months in connection with Savitri, once Manoj [Das Gupta] very kindly remarked to one of the editors of the critical Edition: “For the sake of the perfection of Savitri, even if only one avoidable error is detected in the Table of Corrections and then eliminated, that itself is worth all the laour that is being put in.” It is very charitable on Manoj’s part to make such a remark. But I can assure him with all the emphasis at my command that my persistent queries have already led to the rejection of quite a few, many more than one, inappropriate “corrections” that were sought to be introduced into Savitri; and I can equally assure him that my other queries, if properly investigated, will lead to the rejection of many more. But unless the editors’ views are appropriately modified and made more flexible, many unnecessary, often inappropriate and at times seriously inapt “corrections” will be incorporated into the text of Savitri, and most if not all in the name of the “copy-text”, as if all them are in Sri Aurobindo’s own handwritten final manuscript and all are in keeping with their altered contents. But in many cases it is not so. I am convinced about this point than ever before and am ready to establish it at any time before any independent and competent authority. It is now clear to me that if the Table of Corrections is carried out in toto, what will happen is that along with the happy elimination of many genuine “transmission errors”, some other new and serious errors of misjudgement on the editors’ part will be at the same time introduced into the text of the Poem. No personality factors are involved here: there is no question of one party winning and the other losing a debating point. … if my intervention is felt to be inconvenient, let it be explicitly stated and I shall turn quiet and silent and not say anything on my own unless I am specifically asked to do so. [He was never asked. Here are two examples from the same letter of his.] The following passage is on p. 708, and the Table of Corrections proposes to change “front,” to “front:”.

This universe shall unseal its occult sense,
Creation’s process change its antique front,
An ignorant evolution’s hierarchy
Release the Wisdom chained below its base.

Well, here the construction is supposed to be as follows: ‘This universe shall unseal’, ‘Creation’s process (shall) change’ and ‘in ignorant evolution’s hierarchy (shall) release’. Now, if one inserts a colon after ‘front’ of the second line, ‘shall’ cannot be understood before ‘release’ and ‘a hierarchy release’ will be a patent anomaly—grammar-wise as well as meaningless. And this is what is being proposed by the Table of Corrections. Did Nirodbaran and KD Sethna ditto this proposal? [Eventually however, ‘front,’ was retained in the Revised Edition, and there is no mention of it in the Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri.] Then, on p. 691 are the following two lines:

Lift up the fallen heart of love which flutters,
Cast down the desire’s abyss into the gulfs.

The Table of Corrections has “flutters” instead of “flutters,”. Here the case is still more startling. The editors of the Critical Edition propose to eliminate the necessary comma after “flutters”. Let us study the case. Well, the two verbal forms, “Lift up” and “Cast down” are here in the Imperative Mood. The two sentences represented by the two lines are grammatically complete and independent. How can one propose to juxtapose these two sentences without any punctuation mark separating them? And have we to believe that after due circumspection two authorities decided to knock down the very essential mark of punctuation? Difficult to imagine. Or can it be that I, Jugal, am proving myself insensitive to some “richer significance” or “greater appropriateness” offered by the suggested punctuational alterations? I hope not. [Finally, the Revised Edition is without the comma, it is "flutters". But, unfortunately, no details of any kind are provided anywhere. That is the trouble with the Table of Corrections.]

So, no use saying that the listed “corrections” are the result of “checking and rechecking” “under the supervision of Nirodbaran and KD Sethna. It will be discreet to admit that mistakes have been committed here and there, and not infrequently, and then proceed to re-investigate at least these cases which I have prima facie marked “inappropriate”. And if these slips and oversights are pointed out by somebody, the editors should gladly welcome them: why should they take it as a personal affront and be irritated?