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.
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.
Calcutta
.png)
.png)
.png)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
