|
The Authority for the New Edition
On what authority were changes made in Savitri?
Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts are the main authority for the changes. What Sri Aurobindo wrote has not been changed anywhere in the new edition. What have been corrected are mistakes of various kinds that occurred when his lines were copied, typed and printed. Our idea was that Savitri should consist of Sri Aurobindo’s own words as far as possible. Some people may disagree with this, but it is the principle on which the work has been based. Corrections have been made in every edition of Savitri, so there is nothing alarmingly new about what has been done in the Revised Edition. The complete epic first appeared in two volumes in 1950-51. But this edition was soon found to contain mistakes. When the University Edition (1954) was being prepared, Nirod asked the Mother if he could take Amal’s help in detecting errors. She gave her approval. Several dozen corrections were carried out in that edition. In the Centenary Edition (1970), another hundred or so corrections were introduced. But there were also typographical errors in both these editions. Some such mistakes in the Centenary Edition were corrected in the 1976 reprint. When people say "Savitri should not have been changed", it is not clear which edition should not have been changed. The preparatory work for the Revised Edition of Savitri was done by the Archives. But its chief editors were Nirod and Amal, who have been responsible for all editions of Savitri up to the present. The Revised Edition (1993) may be considered the continuation and culmination of Nirod’s and Amal’s effort to eliminate errors from the text of Savitri. The difference is
Page-1 that this time they have had the help of the Archives. The result has been the most meticulously prepared and error-free edition to date. It is also the first time a list of the changes has been published. This is perhaps the main reason for the controversy. The Archives’ work on Savitri began in the late seventies under Nirod’s supervision. Before that, Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts of the poem had been consulted now and then to decide doubtful points that came up. But nobody had thought of systematically comparing the manuscripts with the various copies, typescripts and printed texts. This was the exacting and time-consuming procedure that now began. After one phase of this work was finished, I asked Nolini-da if corrections could be made in view of certain discrepancies that had been noticed. His reply was simple and straightforward: "You can make the changes if Nirod approves of them." Those who have read Savitri only in a printed form can have little idea of the complexity of the process that led from Sri Aurobindo’s last handwritten version to the published text. Nirod had first-hand experience of all this. Being well aware of the numerous possibilities of error, he readily agreed to the Archives’ idea of checking the text. This meant tracing the history of each line, sometimes through six or seven stages. It was suggested that mistakes that were found to have occurred at one stage or another should be corrected, unless Sri Aurobindo’s later revision made it inadvisable to do so. Nirod approved of this principle, as did Amal. After the Archives had been working on Savitri for about seven years, a list of proposed changes in the printed text was published in the December 1986 issue of the Archives and Research journal. Both Nirod and Amal saw and approved of this list before it was published. But their confidence in the Archives was such that at this stage they did not take the time to look closely at the specific reasons for each change. They did so only in the next phase. The list of suggested corrections aroused strong opposition in some quarters. In order to resolve the controversy, a series of discussions took place during the period 1988-92 at Amal’s
Page-2 place. Nirod, Amal, Jugal and Deshpande took part initially. Later, Richard from the Archives was invited to join and Jugal discontinued. This group went into all the points in minute detail. Richard brought the manuscripts and other documents to the meetings and submitted reports on the more complicated questions. Nirod and Amal examined the manuscripts before making the final decision on each point. Deshpande recorded the proceedings of the meetings. Occasionally when Amal and Nirod disagreed, Tehmi was asked to give her view, though she did not attend the meetings. But in fact there were very few substantive disagreements between Nirod and Amal. Long hours were spent discussing punctuation. But on more significant points, the evidence of the manuscript was almost always decisive and there was little room for differences of opinion. In doubtful cases, the text was left as it was. Weekly meetings went on like this for about four years. Eventually a new list of changes was finalised, similar to the original list but slightly longer. Nirod and Amal gave their written permission, as reproduced on the next page, to carry out these corrections in a new edition. A new edition incorporating the approved changes was brought out in 1993 and reprinted in a deluxe format the following year. A Supplement listing and explaining the differences between this edition and previous ones was issued separately.
Page-3
Page-4 |
