The Mahabharata of Krishna-Dwaipayana Vyasa | Page 2

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