From Satheesh S email@example.com to "Tusar N. Mohapatra" firstname.lastname@example.org date 19 April 2010 18:21 subject For SEOF: Bibliographical Note at the back of the 1993 edition of the Savitri
Dear Mr. August,
Thank you for drawing our attention to the Bibliographical Note at the back of the 1993 edition of the Savitri. As I find it extremely relevant and significant I reproduce the last paragraph here, for the sake of some of the readers, and also for a special class/group of special people such as Mr. Jitendra Sharma, who refuses to see the value of the 1993 edition of the Savitri:
"The fourth, critically revised edition was published in 1993... This edition is the result of the first systematic checking of the printed text of Savitri against the manuscripts. Unauthentic readings due to inaccurate transcription or later misprinting have been corrected. A number of accidentally omitted lines have been restored to the text. Detailed information about the edition, including a Table of Alternative Readings and a Table of Emendations listing the differences between this and previous editions, is published separately in the "Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri".
Isn't it therefore evident that if the 1993 edition is the result of the first systematic checking of the printed text against the manuscripts, the result is likely to be the most authentic version of the Savitri as written by Sri Aurobindo and as recorded in his manuscripts? Additionally, if all the Emendations and Alternative Readings are clearly documented and available for all to refer to, doesn't this edition integrate all the previous editions into one comprehensive work?
It may also be interesting to note that while Mr. RYD, one of the louder critics of the 1993 edition, prides himself by showing off his expertise on the Savitri and without any hesitation accuses Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran of being "gawkish" (http://www.mirroroftomorrow.org/blog/_archives/2010/3/20/4485311.html#1310185), he cannot but admit that:
"We have argued about some of these aspects in Editing Savitri—a Brief Discussion but a more detailed look into it is essential. This can happen only if there is access to the archival documents. Until then one can only point out uncertainties in the revised text and leave the matters at that."
Therefore, if Mr. RYD has not even accessed the archival documents and has not had a detailed look at some of the issues, what is his moral authority or credibility to accuse Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran of being "gawkish"? These two respectable and honourable individuals have not only been handling the manuscripts for decades, but they have been involved in the process of the making of the Savitri, directly with Sri Aurobindo. So who really is Mr. RYD to accuse Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran of being gawkish?
Unlike Mr. RYD, Mr. Nirodbaran and Mr. Amal Kiran had access to the manuscripts all along and did study the manuscripts (as per the Bibiliographical Note not only studied but also studied systematically). Does that not put these two respected individuals at least one notch if not a few more notches above Mr. RYD, in competence and authority to judge about the accuracy in Savitri???
Just let at least the sane people ponder over this matter… And, for my own personal satisfaction, I think that on my next visit to Sri Aurobindo Ashram in
, I will pay a courtesy visit to Mr. RYD, to really understand what lies behind Mr. RYD's incessant slandering, ravings and rantingss. Sincerely, Satheesh. Pondicherry