Let us take the opening lines of the new section on p.
322 of Savitri vis-à-vis certain matters
of punctuation and the editorial hand causing puzzlement, at times even
disorientation in the presentation of the text, something that certainly is
questionable. The relevant passage in the Centenary as well as the earlier
editions of Savitri runs as follows:
Then suddenly there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths;
A living Oneness widened at its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes.
In the 1993 Revised Edition this has a different
punctuation:
Then suddenly there came a downward look.
As if a sea exploring its own depths,
A living Oneness widened at its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes.
With these changes the sense in the two passages gets considerably altered. In
the Revised Edition the comparison of the second line is with the living
Oneness which is widening at its core, widening at its core in the manner of a
sea exploring its own great depths. In the process, that widening would join Aswapati
to unnumbered multitudes. But if we should at all combine both the actions, of the
widening at its core and of the joining him to unnumbered multitudes, then
these would be happening together, happening in the manner of the sea’s
exploring its own depths. We could have, effectively,
A living Oneness widened at its core
As if a sea exploring its own depths,
Had joined him to unnumbered multitudes.
Or else
A living Oneness widened at its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes,
As if a sea were exploring its own depths.
None of these are natural and felicitous; the metaphors would not bring the expected
association of the two together. The actions connected with ‘widening’ and ‘joining’
do not go well with the action of ‘exploration of depths’. They look awkward, they
look gauche, they look incongruous.
In the earlier editions before 1993 we had:
Then suddenly there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths;
A living Oneness widened at its core
And joined him to unnumbered multitudes.
We have in this comparison the downward look set to explore the depths in the
manner of a sea which is certainly an instinctive association. Aswapati was expecting
a response from the divine Shakti, but no voice came down from the high
silences, no answer from the austere solitudes of hers. There was a stillness
of cessation, there was only the “wide immortal hush before the gods were
born”. Yet there was eagerness in the heart of the anticipator. It is in this
condition that something wonderful happens, something transcendentally
marvellous to open up the possibility that could exist here down below. That
indeed makes the “downward look” exploring sea-like its own depths perfectly
and congruently acceptable: the plunge of the look deepening into the depths down
below is in great harmony with the contents it is also speaking of. There is
the sense of unity and accord, of gracefulness and elegance.
But how exactly did this change in punctuation in the 1993 take place? Are
there any reasaonable grounds to go by them? There don’t seem to be any. The
information pertaining to this passage is as follows:
Sri Aurobindo’s last-but-one manuscript has
Then suddenly there came a downward look.
As if a sea exploring its own depths, …
In the final manuscript we have the same but without any punctuation:
Then suddenly there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths …
The revised scribal copy, which continues without any further revision, an otherwise
accurate copy of the last manuscript, reads as follows:
Then suddenly there came a downward look
As if a sea exploring its own depths; …
The editors of the Revised Edition of Savitri
tell us in a Supplement that it “is not certain that this punctuation [depths;]
was put at Sri Aurobindo’s dictation.”
This “it is not certain” looks rather strange if not fishy, if not preposterous
when nothing can be said either way. In fact, if at all there should exist an element
of uncertainty, the obvious line of approach ought to have been to retain what
is there in the revised scribal copy rather than going by the penultimate
draft. After all, it is this revised scribal version which was read out to Sri
Aurobindo, subsequently, on a number of occasions. At the most, and as a matter
of editorial thoroughness and care, perhaps also as a matter of general interest,
the suggested alternatives could have been put as footnotes. Actually, the
Supplement provides a star on the recommended emendation: we have in it “look.*”
and “depths,*” as against the plain “look” and “depths;”. This implied that while
the first set would go in the main body of the text, the second be put as
footnotes. But in the final Revised Edition we do not have anywhere any of these.
The dubious aspect of the whole thing is that, Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri has remained unknown
to the readers of Savitri, when
thousands of its copies are being sold regularly.
Let us look again into the scribal copy of the current
passage with “look” and “depths;” in the context of discussion that took place
in the late 1980s when it was being finalized. I had asked Nirodbaran the
scribe if he himself had put the semicolon after “depths” as it was not there
in the previous version. His answer was categorical: “No, I did not do it.” He
told me quite emphatically that he would never do anything of the kind, nothing
of his own. Slips might have been there, but never were there such additions of
his own. This was the approach not only here, but throughout the Savitri-work. I checked with him not
once but on many occasions, and he was consistent in his reply. This should
mean that, in the passage we are looking into, the semicolon after “depth” was
dictated by Sri Aurobindo himself. The editors of the Revised Edition should
have gone by it, by “depths;”. When I questioned Nirodbaran about it, how he
allowed the change in punctuation, comma in place of semicolon, he sort of
resignedly replied: “They want it that way.” That was, unfortunately, the whole
difficulty; in any case, the editors true to the profession should have
excercised their discernment which often lacked in the entire approach; instead
of saying “it is not certain” they should have put their emendations in the
footnotes and not in the main body of the text, and put along with explanatory
details. The absence of such details makes the whole Revised Editon of Savitri higly suspect.
We are going, as elsewhere, essentially by the
centenary edition of Savitri.