{"id":3377,"date":"2013-07-13T01:47:55","date_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:47:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/?p=3377"},"modified":"2013-07-13T01:47:55","modified_gmt":"2013-07-13T01:47:55","slug":"06-reading-in-the-new-edition-vol-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/01-works-of-sri-aurobindo\/02-other-editions\/01-savitri\/08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two\/06-reading-in-the-new-edition-vol-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","title":{"rendered":"-06_Reading in the New Edition.htm"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\n\n
\n

\n
\nReadings in the New Edition <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nMost differences between the new edition of Savitri<\/i> and previous editions are easily explained by describing how the work
\non the new edition was done. Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts
\nwere compared line by line with the copies of those manuscripts. It was found that accidental changes had occurred
\nsometimes when his lines were copied, typed and typeset. The
\ndivergences from what Sri Aurobindo wrote or dictated have
\nnow been corrected, restoring his original text where it was
\ninadvertently altered. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe have seen that the procedure followed in preparing
\nthis edition was approved in principle by the Mother, long
\nbefore it was applied systematically to the whole text of Savitri.
\n<\/i>We have also seen that she entrusted the responsibility for
\neditorial decisions regarding Savitri<\/i> to certain individuals, who
\nhave duly authorised the publication of the Revised Edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTypical examples of differences between editions of Savitri
\n<\/i>have been given in the previous booklet "On the New Edition
\nof Savitri"<\/i> (Part One). As an introduction, readers should refer to the last article in that booklet, "Editions of Savitri:<\/i> How
\nand Why Do They Differ?" The Table of Emendations in the
\n"Supplement to the Revised Edition of Savitri\u201d<\/i> lists the differences between all editions. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe items discussed in the following pages have been chosen
\nby critics of the new edition as examples of what, according to them, are mistakes in this edition. The explanations
\noffered below will provide readers with the information they
\nneed to judge for themselves. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 23<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nEditorial Decisions and the Table of Alternative Readings
\n<\/b><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSome of these items are not typical, straightforward examples, but special cases involving unusual problems and requiring detailed explanations. The number of such problems in
\nthe text of Savitri<\/i> is limited. The attention of the readers has
\nbeen drawn to them by the Table of Alternative Readings in
\nthe Supplement. The nature of each case is indicated briefly in
\nthe notes at the end of that table. A few examples have been discussed at some
\nlength in the Introduction to the Supplement. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative readings are given where the manuscripts do
\nnot provide an unambiguous indication of Sri Aurobindo’s
\nintention. In dictated lines, for instance, the scribe may have
\nmisunderstood what Sri Aurobindo meant; but objective evidence to support corrections may be lacking, since the lines
\nwere not written by Sri Aurobindo with his own hand. Editorial judgment has had to be exercised in such cases in every
\nedition of Savitri.<\/i> For examples of editorial decisions of this
\nkind in previous editions, see the discussion of items 13, 14,
\n18 and 19. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen the Revised Edition was being prepared, it was found
\nthat Sri Aurobindo had drafted by hand many passages which
\nhe later dictated for his scribe to write out more neatly. The
\ndiscovery of these drafts has reduced the need for emending
\nwithout manuscript support, as in the correction of "sole" to
\n"soul" discussed above. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut some exercise of editorial judgment in determining
\nthe readings that best represent Sri Aurobindo’s intention has
\nremained unavoidable. A particular edition cannot be legitimately criticised for this, since it is a feature of all editions.
\nThe question to be asked is only whether the right decisions
\nhave been made. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 24<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n1.1950, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo feel<\/u> the eternal’s touch in time-made things, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 108, line 20)
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo fix the eternal’s touch in time-made things, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo dictated the following lines when he revised his
\nlast manuscript of Book Two, Canto Two: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo seize the absolute in shapes that pass,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo fix the eternal’s touch in time- made things,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis is the law of all perfection here. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the facsimile on page 28, these lines can be seen in the margin of the manuscript, written by Sri Aurobindo’s scribe at
\nright angles to the rest of the text. When he copied the lines
\ninto the ledger used for the fair copy of Part One, the scribe
\nwrote "feel" instead of "fix". His copy is reproduced on page
\n29, where "feel" appears in the sixth line. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nApart from the discrepancy between "fix" and "feel", the
\nfair copy corresponds very closely to the revised manuscript
\npage. The word "gloss" at the end of the fifth line in the manuscript was copied as "glass", but the error was corrected by
\nwriting an "o" over the "a" in the fair copy itself. When he
\ncopied the word he had taken down as "timemade" or "time
\nmade", the scribe rightly added a hyphen. Evidently Sri Aurobindo did not always specify such details when he dictated. "Time-made" is hyphenated in its four other occurrences in
\nSavitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAll changes dictated by Sri Aurobindo when he revised
\nthe manuscripts of Savitri<\/i> were marked on the manuscripts
\nthemselves by the scribe, who was then expected to copy the
\nwords written there. If Sri Aurobindo, after dictating "fix",
\nhad altered it himself to "feel", "fix" would have been cancelled and "feel" written as the word replacing it.* <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* Typical examples of the marking of dictated changes can be seen in the facsimile on page 66. The facsimile of the manuscript for the present item illustrates
\nthe insertion of dictated lines, but not the cancellation and replacement of words <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 25<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nHeavily revised passages were sometimes copied on small
\nsheers which were pinned to the manuscript after cancelling the original version. These intermediate fair copies might be
\nrevised by Sri Aurobindo before the final copy was made. Only
\nin such a case could Sri Aurobindo have made a change at a
\nstage between the revised manuscript and the copy in the ledger.
\nBut in the present passage there is no heavy revision and no
\ncancellation. The passage was certainly copied directly from the manuscript shown in the first facsimile into the ledger
\nshown on the next page. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA word with such a distinctive sound as "fix" cannot be a
\nmishearing of Sri Aurobindo’s dictation. It is clear that its replacement by "feel" was not due to Sri Aurobindo’s revision,
\nbut to the copyist’s inadvertence. Therefore, the original word has been restored in the new edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhat is unusual is that the scribe miscopied his own
\nhandwriting. Most discrepancies between the manuscripts and the copies are due to
\nmisreading of Sri Aurobindo’s difficult handwriting of his later years. But a mistake like this one is also
\nfound in the scribe’s transcript of the preceding page of the Manuscript. There,
\nin copying a dictated line, instead of "cancels" he wrote "conceals" in the fair copy. Yet "cancels" was
\nas clear as "fix" on the next page.* Such slips must have been
\ndue to a momentary relaxation of concentration when there
\nwas no apparent difficulty in reading the manuscript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n________________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\nand phrases. In the first line, the "se" added to "the" to make "these" is in the
\nbribe’s handwriting and must have been dictated. The underlined word in the
\nfifteenth line was not changed; the scribe rewrote all but the first letter of "presses"
\nbecause it was difficult to read in Sri Aurobindo’s handwriting. The revision marked
\non another page of the scribe’s copy and on a typed copy accounts for the
\nreplacement of "bonds" at the top of the page in the manuscript by "knots" in the printed
\ntext and explains how "An enthusiasm of divine surprise" in the middle of the
\npage became "The enthusiasm of a divine surprise". <\/font><\/p>\n

\n* A similar instance can be seen in the facsimile on page 67. This shows the fair
\ncopy of the dictated passage reproduced on page 66. In the fifth line from the
\nbottom of the fair copy, "thirst" is a misreading of "thought" in the third line from
\nthe bottom of the page from which it was copied; "thirst" was corrected to "thought"
\non the typescript.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 26<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThe correction of "feel" to "fix" in the new edition was a
\nquestion of restoring the authentic reading in place of a word
\nthat was accidentally substituted for it. But at first sight, "feel"
\nis an appealing word in this line. It is necessary to point out
\nhow the word dictated by Sri Aurobindo is superior to the
\none that happened to replace it. For his lines were never actually improved by being miscopied. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis passage speaks of the creative process in relation to
\nthe higher reality it tries to capture. It defines the law of perfection in "all we attempt" here. To "feel" subjectively the
\neternal’s touch is not enough for perfection. For that, the artist or other creator has to "fix" concretely in the spirit and
\nform of his work what Sri Aurobindo elsewhere calls "the
\ntouch of immortality and perfection, even a little of which is
\nenough to carry it safe through the ages".21 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 27<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/p>\n

\nA column of the manuscript of Book Two, Canto Two<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe sentence in the margin, with "fix" in the second line, was
\ndictated by Sri Aurobindo when he revised the manuscript. It
\nis shown enlarged at the top of the next page. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 28<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nDictated lines in the margin of the manuscript<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nLines copied from the manuscript by the scribe<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe sixth line is the copy of the line in which Sri Aurobindo
\nhad dictated "fix". The scribe substituted "feel".<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 29<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n2.1951, 1954 and<\/i><\/b> 1970<\/b> editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlways she drives <\/b>the souls<\/u> to new attempt; <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 <\/b> edition (page 354,<\/b> line 11)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlways she drives<\/b> the soul to new attempt; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo first wrote: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlways she drives the soul to new attempt; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nthen he cancelled "the", wrote "our" above it, and put an "s"
\nslightly below and to the right of the "1" of "soul". Since "soul"
\nwas run together with the following "to", the "s" could not
\nbe attached directly to the "I". Thus the line became: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlways she drives our souls to new attempt; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nbut having tried this second version, Sri Aurobindo evidently
\ndecided to restore the line to its original form. He crossed out
\n"our" and put a wavy line under "the". It is not clear whether
\nhe touched the "s" that had been added to make "our souls"; the diagonal line through it could be the upstroke of a cursive
\n"s" or the cancellation of a printed "s". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIf the "s" is not taken to be cancelled, the final version
\nwould appear to read: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlways she drives the souls to new attempt; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nand in fact it was so typed and printed. But "the souls" used
\nin this way is awkward English, not consistent with Sri Aurobindo’s style or with his mastery of the language. It can be
\nconcluded that he intended to revert to his original version,
\nwith "the soul", when he changed the "our" of "our souls"
\nback to "the". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis conclusion is supported by a study of the occurrences
\nof "the soul", "the souls" and "our souls" in Savitri<\/i> and other
\nwritings of Sri Aurobindo. In Savitri,<\/i> "the soul" occurs 236
\ntimes and "our souls" 24 times. On the other hand, "the souls" <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 30<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\noccurs only 7 times and is always followed by an expression
\nbeginning with "of" or "that": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe souls<\/i> came there that<\/i><\/b> vainly strive for birth,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Her meaningful outlines <\/b>of the souls of<\/i> things
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts priests the souls of<\/i> <\/b>dedicated gods,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo the souls of <\/i> men<\/b> their deep identity.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nMeant for the souls that<\/i> <\/b>can obey my law,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe souls of men<\/i> <\/b>have wandered from the Light
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPointing to the souls of men<\/i> <\/b>the routes to God.22 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s other writings confirm that he never wrote
\n"the souls" without a qualifying phrase to indicate which souls
\nare meant. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the present line there is no such qualifying phrase. "Always she drives the souls" would therefore be an anomaly.
\nThe anomaly would have to be accepted if it was indisputably
\nintended by Sri Aurobindo. But the evidence for this is weak; the "s" may even be cancelled. We know only that Sri Aurobindo wrote "the soul", changed it to "our souls", then cancelled "our". The natural conclusion is that he wanted to revert
\nto "the soul", as he had originally written. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 31<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n3. 1951,1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOr stretched to find Truth-mind’s<\/u> divining rod; <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page <\/b> 361, line 32)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOr stretched to find truth mind’s divining rod; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe present reading agrees with Sri Aurobindo’s last revision
\nof a line he had first written as <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFeeling for truth with mind’s divining rod
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nand later changed to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt stretched towards Truth the mind’s divining rod <\/font><\/p>\n

\nbefore he altered it to its final form. All these versions speak
\nof a search for truth using "mind’s divining rod", not of a
\nsearch for "Truth-mind’s divining rod". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe line should be read in its context. It occurs after a
\ndescription of the arts and sciences of ancient India, in the
\nfollowing sentence in Book Four, Canto Two: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThese things she took in as her nature’s food,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut these alone could fill not her wide Self: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA human seeking limited by its gains,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo her they seemed the great and early steps
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHazardous of a young discovering spirit
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhich saw not yet by its own native light; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt tapped the universe with testing knocks
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOr stretched to find truth mind’s divining <\/b> rod…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe history of the last line shows that Sri Aurobindo intended
\nit to mean <\/b> "Or stretched mind’s divining rod to find truth". A
\nhyphen before "mind’s" was deleted on three typescripts
\nmarked with his dictated revision. In the final version Sri Aurobindo also changed the "T" in "Truth", which had been capitalised in the previous version, to a small "t". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThough Sri Aurobindo tried to remove the hyphen from <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 32<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe typed copies, the phrase "Truth-mind’s divining rod" appeared in the printed text. An artificial construction was forced
\non the words of the line, making the rod the object of the
\nsearch rather than the means. Sri Aurobindo had found in the
\ndivining rod an exact image of the mental truth-seeking faculty. It was turned instead into the inappropriate symbol of a
\nhigher "Truth-mind" he had never meant to introduce into
\nthis description of a limited "human seeking". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe divining rod, traditionally a forked rod of hazel wood,
\nis supposed to dip when it is held by the dowser over a place
\nwhere water or metals are hidden below the ground. Whatever its value, such a method cannot lead directly to the object
\nof the search. After wandering about until the rod dips, one
\nhas to dig to ascertain if what one is seeking is really there.
\nThis practice, like the tapping with "testing knocks" in the
\nprevious line, provided Sri Aurobindo with an apt symbol of
\nthe indirect knowledge of the surface mind. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Mother’s comments on the use of the divining rod to
\nfind water show her scepticism about the procedure. She considered the rod itself to be only a "pretext": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is like a rod which bends, you know; try as you may to
\nbe as passive as possible, you will always make a slight
\nmovement when you have the feeling that something is
\nthere. I have tried this experiment many times: you give
\nthe rod to someone, you ask him to walk; you are silent,
\nthe man is silent, quite concentrated; then, suddenly, you
\nthink powerfully: "Here there is water" and hop! the rod
\nmakes a little movement\u2014it is quite evident that it is your
\nsuggestion. I had thought thus, without having the least
\nidea that there was water there, simply to make an experiment; and in the hand of the dowser the rod came down; he had received the suggestion in his subconscient.23
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe method, if it works, would seem to rely on promptings
\nfrom a subliminal consciousness of which the dowser is not
\ndirectly aware. The word "divining" should not mislead us <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 33<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ninto taking it as a means of divine knowledge. Elsewhere in
\nSavitri,<\/i> indeed, Sri Aurobindo couples "divining" with "ignorant", <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere is man’s ignorant divining mind,24
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhich reminds us that he introduced "mind’s divining rod"
\ninto a passage describing the "human seeking" of <\/font><\/p>\n

\na young discovering spirit
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhich saw not yet by its own native light…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAll this has little resemblance to the nature of the Truth-mind
\nof which Sri Aurobindo writes: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBuddhi is really an intermediary between a much higher
\nTruth-mind not now in our active possession, which is the
\ndirect instrument of Spirit, and the physical life of the human mind evolved in body. Its powers of intelligence and
\nwill are drawn from this greater direct Truth-mind or
\nsupermind.25 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe "Truth-mind" is evidently a faculty that brings us face to
\nface with Truth; Sri Aurobindo repeats the word "direct" in
\nspeaking of it. In Savitri<\/i> there is no authentic occurrence of
\n"Truth-mind". "Truth" and "mind" come together in only
\none other line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe truth mind could not know unveils its face,26
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere "which" is understood after "truth". A hyphen would
\nmake the line meaningless. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe groping nature of the mind’s search for truth, figured
\nin the use of the divining rod, comes out strongly in the first
\nversion found in Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFeeling for truth with mind’s divining rod…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 34<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIn the next version, the image of the rod held by the dowser is <\/font><\/p>\n

\nmade more vivid by the verb "stretched", which also carries a
\npsychological suggestion: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt stretched towards Truth the mind’s divining rod…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFinally, Sri Aurobindo has replaced "towards Truth" by "to
\nfind Truth". In his last revision, he changed "Truth" back to
\n"truth" in view of the nature of what the mind can actually
\nfind by its limited means: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOr stretched to find truth mind’s divining rod…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus Sri Aurobindo perfected this line through several
\nstages. Each word has a precise function in relation both to
\nthe symbol and to what is symbolised. Coming after the related image of tapping the universe with "testing knocks", the
\nline says exactly what needs to be said in this context regarding the limitations of a mental seeking for truth. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe intrusion of a hyphen made the rod itself the thing the
\n"young discovering spirit" stretches to find. The coherence of
\nthe image was thus destroyed. The dowser does not stretch to
\nfind his rod; he holds the rod in his hands and stretches it in
\nfront of him to find water. The hyphen had the still more unfortunate effect of
\nmaking the divining rod the spurious symbol of a "Truth-mind" whose knowledge, according to Sri
\nAurobindo’s writings, has little in common with dowsing. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe hyphen was deleted on three typed copies corrected
\nby Sri Aurobindo. Nevertheless, it was printed in the first three editions of Savitri<\/i> and has been removed only in the new edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 35<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n4.1951 and 1954 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nTHE JOY OF UNION; THE ORDEAL OF THE FOREKNOWLEDGE OF DEATH AND THE HEART’S GRIEF <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n1970 edition<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Joy of Union; The <\/b>Ordeal of the Foreknowledge<\/i>
\nof Death and the Heart’s <\/b>Grief <\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 465)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Joy of Union; the Ordeal of the Foreknowledge
\nof Death and the Heart’s Grief and Pain<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo originally gave the following title and subtitle
\nto Book Seven, Canto One: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLife in the Forest
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Joy of Union and the Ordeal of the
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nForeknowledge of Death and the Heart’s Grief and Pain <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen he dictated the revision of the typed copy,
\nSri Aurobindo deleted "Life in the Forest". He replaced the first "and"
\nby a semicolon, so the title became: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Joy of Union; the Ordeal of the Foreknowledge
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nof  Death and the Heart’s Grief and Pain <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe words "and Pain" were omitted in the second volume of
\nthe first edition, which was prepared for publication after Sri
\nAurobindo’s passing. The omitted words have been restored in the Revised Edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn 1951 and 1954, the title was printed in capitals. The
\nCentenary edition inconsistently has "The" capitalised after
\nthe semicolon in the heading at the beginning of the canto,
\nbut "the" (in small capitals) in the table of contents. The new
\nedition has "the" in both places. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 36<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n5.1951, 1954 and 1970 <\/b>editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n*         
\n*       * <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 551)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Discovery <\/b>of the Cosmic Spirit and the Cosmic<\/i>
\nConsciousness<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBook Seven was added to the scheme of Savitri<\/i> only in 1947.
\nThe manuscript version of its final canto includes some of the
\nlast passages to be drafted by Sri Aurobindo in his own hand.
\nIn his first draft of the opening, he inserted the following heading at the top of the page: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nCanto IV. The Discovery of the Cosmic Spirit
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nand the Cosmic Consciousness <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt was "Canto IV" because the Book of Yoga originally had
\nonly four cantos. The second canto, entitled at first "The Parable of the Finding of the Soul", grew to an enormous length.
\nSri Aurobindo divided it into the present Cantos II-V when he
\nrevised the typescript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter writing a page and a few lines of the first draft of the
\nlast canto under the heading quoted above, Sri Aurobindo
\nwrote "Canto IV" at the top of a new page and began again.
\nHe did not repeat the title in the second draft. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe dictated version follows the second draft of the opening with a few lines added. A typed copy of this is marked
\nlightly with some further dictated revision. The typescript has
\nthe heading: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nBOOK
\n<\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\nTHE BOOK OF YOGA <\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n
\nCanto 4 <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIn the first line of the heading, someone has written "VII"
\nlightly in pencil after "BOOK". The incorrect canto number,
\n"4", is also circled in pencil (but not cancelled) and "7" is <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 37<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwritten, next to it. These markings on the typed copy do not
\nresemble those made at Sri Aurobindo’s dictation by his scribe,
\nwho always marked changes in ink, cancelling the previous
\nversion. These pencil markings may have been made when
\n<\/b>the
\n<\/b>first edition was prepared for press in 1951. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSince Sri Aurobindo did not correct the wrong canto
\nnumber when he dictated the revision of the typescript, he
\ncannot have paid attention to the heading at that time. Perhaps the question of the canto number and title did not arise
\nin this case because the canto was not yet being prepared for publication. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe absence of a title in the typescript does not mean that Sri Aurobindo wanted the canto <\/b> to be published without a
\ntitle, any more than his leaving "Canto 4" uncorrected means
\nthat he wanted Canto Six to be followed by Canto Four. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo gave this canto a title, so the footnote in
\nprevious editions, "No title given by the Author", was incorrect. Now that Sri Aurobindo’s title has been found in the
\nmanuscript, it is naturally printed at the head of the canto. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 38<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n6.1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nGloom led to worse gloom, death<\/u> to an emptier death,<\/u> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 599, line 6)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nGloom led to worse gloom, depth to an emptier depth, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThere are two drafts of this passage in Sri Aurobindo’s hand.
\nIn both drafts, the word repeated in the second half of the line
\nis not "death", but "depth". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo had written "depth to an emptier depth"; but when the scribe took the line down at Sri Aurobindo’s
\ndictation, he wrote "death to an emptier death". A "p" before "th", unless it is pronounced with deliberate emphasis,
\nmay not be distinctly audible. The scribe evidently heard
\n"depth" as "death". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis is related to the emendations of "sole" to "soul" and
\n"curbed" to "curved", discussed earlier in connection with
\nthe Mother’s translation, where drafts by Sri Aurobindo support the corrections. These cases and others belong to a stage
\nin the work on Savitri<\/i> when the scribe was not copying Sri
\nAurobindo’s drafts, but writing at his dictation. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWords that sound similar could be confused while taking
\ndictation. Sri Aurobindo’s handwritten versions show his intention most reliably in such cases. Therefore "death", found
\nin the scribe’s handwriting, has been corrected to "depth",
\nwhich was written more than once by Sri Aurobindo himself. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 39<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n7. 1951,1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nChastise thy heart with knowledge, unhood and<\/u> see, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 612, line 4)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nChastise thy heart with knowledge, unhood to see, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n8. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf a happy Nothingness and wordless<\/u> Calm, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 612, line 15)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf a happy Nothingness and worldless Calm, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe phrase "unhood to see" is found in four manuscripts in
\nSri Aurobindo’s handwriting. The final dictated version has
\nthe same phrase. But in writing it, the scribe ran together the
\nwords "to" and "see". The "t" of his "to" resembles his way
\nof forming an ampersand ("&:"). When he made a copy of
\nthis version, the scribe apparently took the "t" as "&" and
\noverlooked the "o" which was run together with "see". He
\nwrote "and" instead of "to", so that the phrase became
\n"unhood and see". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe second line occurs a little later in the same passage. It
\nwas dictated by Sri Aurobindo and written by the scribe with
\nthe word "worldless", <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf a happy Nothingness and worldless Calm, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nbut in his fair copy of this, the scribe substituted the more
\ncommon "wordless". "Worldless" also occurs in two other
\nlines in Savitri:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSeeking heaven’s rest or the spirit’s worldless peace,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nFor not for thee the nameless worldless Nought….27
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 40<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n9. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn earth’s anomalous and tragic<\/u> field
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 627, line 32)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn earth’s anomalous and magic field <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo wrote this line first with the word "mystic": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn earth’s anomalous and mystic field…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThen he changed "mystic" to "magic". The line appears twice
\nin this form in Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn earth’s anomalous and magic field…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe dictated version of the passage has the same word,
\n"magic". But when the scribe made a copy of this version, he
\nsubstituted "tragic". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s assistants, when they copied or typed, were
\nexpected to reproduce the text exactly as it was. The replacement of "magic" by "tragic" was unintentional. Since the
\nchange to "tragic" was not made by Sri Aurobindo, "magic"
\nhas been restored. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 41<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n10.1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd taught1
\n<\/b>the entries of a heavenlier state
\n<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFootnote:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n \u00b9Alternative: "Vistaed" <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 683, line 24)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd taught the entries of a heavenlier state
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative reading in the Supplement:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\n

\n\t\t\tText <\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tAlternative reading<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

\ntaught <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

\n\t\t\tvistaed <\/font><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

\nWhen Sri Aurobindo dictated the revision of the typed copy
\nof Book Eleven, he changed the line <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOpening the vision of a heavenly state<\/font><\/p>\n

\n to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd taught the entries of a heavenlier state….<\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nHe considered using "vistaed" instead of "taught", but did
\nnot make a final choice between the two words. In the left
\nmargin, the scribe wrote both words, putting "vistaed" above
\n"taught", with a line between them. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe footnote in the first three editions, giving "Vistaed"
\nas an alternative, is misleading. The capital "V" in "Vistaed"
\nmakes it look like an alternative to "And taught". This was
\nprobably not the editors’ intention, but the readers had no
\nway of knowing this.* The Supplement to the Revised Edition, on the other hand, lists "vistaed" clearly as an alternative to "taught", agreeing with what was marked on the
\ntypescript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n* On the first page of Book Eleven, "Were there" was given in previous editions
\nas an alternative, evidently to "appeared", not to "Domains appeared", in spite of
\nthe capital "W". But in footnotes added after the first edition, alternatives were
\nnot capitalised, e.g. "groan" on p. 224 and "a mortal" on p. 523 of the Centenary
\nedition. These, incidentally, are no longer listed as alternatives since it is now <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 42<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThis alternative, like the one on the first page of Book
\nEleven, was evidently left by Sri Aurobindo to be reconsidered later, but he did not return to it. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nFootnotes in Editions of Savitri<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIt has been objected that in the Revised Edition the alternative
\nreading is not given in a footnote but in the Supplement, where
\nit is less accessible. Sri Aurobindo himself, however, never
\npublished alternatives in footnotes to his poetry. There is no
\nreason to believe he would have wanted a footnote here. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis raises the general question of footnotes in Savitri.
\n<\/i>There were no footnotes in the 1950 edition of Part One or in
\nany of the cantos of Parts Two and Three that were published
\nin 1948-50. The second volume of the first edition, prepared
\nfor press after Sri Aurobindo’s passing, had seven footnotes
\n(pages 94, 140, 187,190,197, 297, 308). Two were dropped
\nin the next edition and a new one was added, making six footnotes in 1954 (pages 565-66, 593, 625, 635, 753, 767). The
\nnumber of footnotes increased to nine in the Centenary edition (pages 224, 437-38, 467, 498, 523, 551, 561, 671, 683).
\nAll but two of these gave alternatives, ranging from a single
\nword to several lines. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Revised Edition is accompanied by a Supplement in
\nwhich 186 alternative readings are listed. The extensive study
\nof Sri Aurobindo’s manuscripts carried out in preparing this
\nedition resulted in a much longer list of alternatives than before. To avoid cluttering the text, footnotes have now been
\nremoved from the book itself, except for the footnote necessary for explaining why the single canto of Book Eight is called
\n"Canto Three". <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n__________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\ncertain that "groan" and "a mortal" were merely mistakes. When they were first
\nemended to "grown" and "immortal", the old readings were printed as alternatives because the correct words had not yet been found in Sri Aurobindo’s
\nmanuscripts, confirming his intention beyond doubt. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 43<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nFootnotes are essentially a scholarly device. An edition
\nconfronting the reader with a footnote at almost every turn of
\nthe page might appeal to the intellectually minded, but would
\nbe likely to distract the non-academic. So in the new edition
\nof Savitri,<\/i> lists of alternative readings and differences between
\neditions are published separately in the Supplement. Readers
\nare thus provided with much more information than in the
\npast, but it is presented in a less obtrusive form. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 44<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThe Length of Savitri:<\/i> A Clarification<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nThe question of footnotes is related to a recent quibble about
\nthe exact length of Savitri<\/i> as published in different editions.
\nCorrect figures have already appeared in the booklet "On the
\nNew Edition of Savitri\u201d<\/i> (Part One): <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n1. Lines in the first edition (1950-51) 23,811 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n2. Lines in the second ("University") edition (1954) 23,812 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n3. Lines in the third ("Centenary") edition (1970) 23,803 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n4. Lines in the fourth ("Revised") edition (1993) 23,837 <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs stated in the booklet where these figures appeared, lines
\nprinted in footnotes as alternative versions were not included
\nin the totals. This is the normal and natural method of counting. Alternative versions are words or lines that could be substituted for those in the text, not additional words or lines
\n<\/b>to
\n<\/b>be added to them. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFigures given in the past for the length of Savitri,<\/i> e.g. in
\nthe Note before the "Letters on Savitri"<\/i> at the end of the 1954
\nedition (page 818), did not include footnotes in the total. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSome have criticised the omission of footnotes from the
\ntotals and have proposed the figures of 23,812 lines for the
\nlength of the first edition and 23,813 for the 1954 and 1970
\neditions, counting footnotes. The totals have been counted in
\nthis way in an attempt to minimise the differences between
\nthese editions. But these figures are erroneous. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 44<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

 If lines in footnotes are counted, they must all be counted.
\nThis would include the nine lines in the footnote on page 140
\nof the 1951 edition, pages 565-66 of the 1954 edition and page 498 of the 1970 edition. The 1951 edition also had a line
\nin a footnote on page 94 which was not included in later editions. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nCounting the footnotes, the 1950-51,1954 and 1970 editions of Savitri<\/i> had the same length of 23,821 lines. But this
\nfigure is misleading, for it conceals significant differences between these editions, such as the fact that in 1954 a line was
\nadded to the printed text of Book Four, Canto Two. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIf the irregular method of counting alternative versions in
\nthe total is admitted, the length of the Revised Edition would
\nincrease considerably from 23,837 lines. For then the lines
\nprinted in the Supplement as alternatives should be included,
\neven if one does not count the 465 lines of "Unused Versions
\nand Omitted Passages". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 45<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n11. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI will pursue thee across the century:<\/u> <\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 699, line 19)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI will pursue thee across the centuries; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo dictated this line which is spoken by the Godhead to Savitri. The scribe heard the last word as "century".
\nBut this would limit to a mere hundred years the "long romance of Thee and Me" described in the preceding line. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSince the restriction to a single century impoverishes the
\nsense of these lines, it is assumed that Sri Aurobindo actually
\ndictated "across the centuries". The scribe must not have heard
\nthe "s". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo speaks frequently of "centuries" in Savitri,
\n<\/i>never of only one "century". These occurrences are found in
\nthe first six books: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA traveller through the magic centuries
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nGreat, patient, calm it sees the centuries<\/i> pass,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA sovereign worker through the centuries<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/i>It lit the thoughts that glow through the centuries<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/i>Ever the centuries<\/i> and millenniums pass.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Heir to the centuries<\/i> of the lonely wise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe centuries<\/i> pile man’s follies and man’s crimes
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAn idiot hour destroys what centuries<\/i> made,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe centuries<\/i> end, the ages vainly pass
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe weeping of the centuries<\/i> visits his eyes: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt pushes its spearhead through the centuries.28<\/font><\/i>
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 46<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n12.1951,1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThou shalt meet all with my<\/u> transmuting soul. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 699, line 36)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThou shalt meet all with thy transmuting soul. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis line occurs in the same dictated passage as the preceding
\nitem. Here there is no reason to doubt that the scribe heard
\ncorrectly when he wrote: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThou shalt meet all with thy transmuting soul. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the typed copy, "my" was typed instead of "thy". The typist’s mistake must have been due to the "my" s in the preceding line. But in the present line, Sri Aurobindo’s "thy" is
\nconsistent with the rest of the passage. For in this paragraph,
\n"my soul" does not otherwise occur, while "thy" occurs before "soul" in six other lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nAnnihilation of thy<\/i> living soul
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy soul<\/i> of flame,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd lay my splendid yoke upon thy soul.
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI will enact the drama of thy soul,<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/i>Summing in thy<\/i> single soul<\/i> my mystic world
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThey shall embrace my body in thy soul….<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 47<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n13. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is the originer<\/u><\/b> of all truth here, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 705, line 14)
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is the origin of all truth here, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis line, again, was not written by Sri Aurobindo in his own
\nhand, but is found in a dictated passage. This sentence describing the supramental consciousness forms part of the longest dictated passage in Savitri,<\/i> a 307-line paragraph which
\nwas the last passage of comparable length to be added to the
\nepic. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen the scribe took this line down, he wrote "originer".
\nNo such word exists or can be formed according to the rules
\nof standard English, so a doubt arises. Did Sri Aurobindo coin
\nit? Or was the word coined, not consciously by Sri Aurobindo,
\nbut unconsciously by his scribe who sometimes misheard what
\nSri Aurobindo dictated? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo coined new words if he needed them to say
\nwhat could not be said equally well in any other way. His
\nauthentic coinages reveal his mastery of language and a judicious restraint in his innovations. He did not practise or encourage indiscriminate invention of words, but insisted on the
\nfulfilment of certain conditions: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter all when one coins a new word, one has to take the
\nchance [of its not being accepted]. If the word is properly
\nformed and not ugly or unintelligible, it seems to me all
\nright to venture.29 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe first condition, "if the word is properly formed", would
\nseem to rule out the possibility of Sri Aurobindo’s coining a
\nword like "originer". For here the agent-noun suffix (-er\/-or)
\nis added to the noun "origin" instead of to the verb "originate", from which "originator" is correctly formed. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo evade the laws of the language it is not enough, in Sri
\nAurobindo’s view, to invoke "poetic licence". Commenting
\non an expression in a disciple’s poem, he observed: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 48<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n"For our valleyed sake" is a locution that offers fascinating possibilities but fails to sound English. One might risk,
\n"Let fall some tears for my unhappy sake" in defiance of
\ngrammar or humorously, "Oh shed some sweat-drops for
\nmy corpulent sake"; but "valleyed sake" carries the principle of the
\nārsa prayoga<\/i> beyond the boundaries of the
\npossible.30 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"Arsha prayoga" or "Rishi’s usage" is the Sanskrit term for
\nthe archaic forms of Vedic Sanskrit that are not in accordance
\nwith the rules of the classical language. It may be extended to
\nmean the liberties permitted to any Rishi or Kavi, inspired
\nseer or poet. Here Sri Aurobindo uses it almost interchangeably with "poetic licence". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nNo doubt, Sri Aurobindo exercised this liberty, but within
\nlimits. His reaction to "valleyed sake" suggests these limits.
\nYet this expression is more defensible than "originer". Sri
\nAurobindo himself has suggested similar possible uses of
\n"sake" on the analogy of more common phrases like "dear
\nsake". The adding of "-ed" to a noun to form "valleyed" is a
\nrecognised option in English, to which he resorted not infrequently in Savitri<\/i> and other poems; "aeoned", "enigmaed"
\nand "miracled" are some instances. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIf "valleyed sake" goes "beyond the boundaries of the
\npossible", "originer" goes much further and certainly "fails
\nto sound English". It is doubtful that Sri Aurobindo would
\nhave accepted, much less committed, such a violence to the
\nlanguage. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe straightforward word "origin" fits the sense and metre of the line perfectly. The "er" of "originer" would add a
\nmetrically permissible but unnecessary syllable. Sri Aurobindo
\nemphasised the importance of economy of sound in the kind
\nof poetry he was writing in Savitri:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPoetic rhythm begins to reach its highest levels, the greater
\npoetic movements become possible … when the poet becomes, in Keats’ phrase, a miser of sound and syllable….<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 49<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIn these highest, intensest rhythms every sound is made
\nthe most of….\u00b3\u00b9<\/font><\/p>\n

\nNor does "originer" seem to contribute anything to the meaning to justify the irregularity of the coinage and the wastage of
\na syllable. After "source" and "fount" in the preceding two
\nlines, "origin" is the natural and inevitable word here, as much
\nas it is where the effects of the opposite principle of existence
\nare described with similar words elsewhere in Savitri:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is the origin of our suffering here….* <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo criticised overuse of neologisms, remarking that <\/font><\/p>\n

\none could invent hundreds of beautiful words but the liberty to do so would end in a language like Joyce’s which is
\nnot desirable.\u00b3\u00b2<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe went further in distancing himself from the innovations of
\nsuch modern writers: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIf the English language is to go to the dogs, let it go, but
\nthe Joyce cut by the way of Bedlam does not recommend <\/font><\/p>\n

\nitself to me.\u00b3\u00b3<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo imposed a strict discipline on himself as
\nwell as on his poet-disciples in the matter of word-coinage.
\nSeveral genuine coinages are found in Savitri.<\/i> They are formed
\non valid analogies with existing words. They show an insight
\ninto word-formation and a respect for the genius of the English language that seem to be lacking in "originer". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nGenerally, Sri Aurobindo coined a new word to convey a
\nsense that could not be expressed equally well with any existing<\/font><\/p>\n

\n_______________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n* Savitri,<\/i> p. 448. A number of such similarly worded pairs of lines occur in Savitri,
\n<\/i>with two or three words that differ and give a contrast in meaning. To give examples would <\/b> go beyond the scope of the present study. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 50<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nword. Some of the principal terms of his Yoga and philosophy, such as "overmind" and "supermind", had to be
\ncoined because the concepts were new to the English language.
\nBesides these major terms, a few other words such as
\n"cosmicity", "internatal" and "seried", which are not found
\neven in the multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary,<\/i> occur in
\nThe Life Divine<\/i> as well as Savitri.<\/i> This indicates that Sri Aurobindo had adopted them in his vocabulary. A handful of coined
\nwords, including "panergy" and "pactise", occur only once
\nin Savitri<\/i> and not elsewhere. But these are etymologically justifiable formations and each is used for a purpose that could
\nnot be served equally well by any other word. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOn the other hand, Sri Aurobindo coined "immensitude"
\nfor the sake of the sound rather than the sense. Questioned
\nabout it, he justified its formation from "immensity" by pointing out: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"Immensitudes" is not any more fantastic than "infinitudes" to pair "infinity".34
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"Immensitude" occurs three times in Savitri,<\/i> illustrating the
\nfact that when Sri Aurobindo found a word to be worth coining, he often considered it worth using more than once. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe case of "originer" is quite different, resembling that
\nof "unshaked", another word in early editions of Savitri<\/i> that
\nwould not have enhanced Sri Aurobindo’s reputation as a
\nmaster of English. The two words have in common the fact
\nthat they both occur in dictated lines. "Unshaked" was emended to
\n"unshaped" in the Centenary edition on the assumption that the scribe had
\nmisheard the "p" as a "k".* <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* See "On the New Edition of Savitri"<\/i> (Part One), p. 18. "Unshaked" differs
\nfrom "originer" in that "unshaked" as a variant of "unshaken" is not totally unknown in the history of English. It occurs a few times in Elizabethan literature,
\nbut has been obsolete for more than three centuries and is not part of the living
\nlanguage. Sri Aurobindo remarked with regard to an obsolete word, "If it is obsolete, it must remain obsolete." (On Himself,<\/i> p. 314) On the other hand, he sometimes used archaic words; but archaic is not the same as obsolete. The Chambers
\nDictionary (1993) defines "archaic" as "not absolutely obsolete but no longer in <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 51<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nMishearing of Dictation: Syllables Added <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIf the scribe had never made a mistake in taking dictation, we
\nwould have had to accept whatever words he wrote as being
\nSri Aurobindo’s words and no further questions could have
\narisen. But the scribe’s ear was not infallible. His mishearing
\nwould be less surprising and unusual than Sri Aurobindo’s
\nuse of an improperly formed word would be. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe scribe’s mishearings of dictation have been corrected
\nat various stages, beginning before the publication of Savitri*
\n<\/i>and continuing through all editions up to 1993. Most relevant
\nto the present question are the cases where a syllable was added
\nby the scribe to the word Sri Aurobindo must have dictated. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThree lines were taken down by the scribe as follows
\n(words later emended are underlined): <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs if sunbeings<\/u> <\/b>made living and divine, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe gaze through our world’s glass at half-seeing<\/u> vasts, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTime’s unforeseeing<\/u><\/b> event, God’s secret plan. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe word "sunbeings" was printed when Book Eleven first
\nappeared in the 1951 issue of Sri Aurobindo Circle.<\/i> Later the
\nsame year, before the second volume of the first edition of
\nSavitri<\/i> came out, the oddity of "sunbeings" was noticed; it <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n_______________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\ngeneral use". "Unshaked" is not only obsolete, it is also much inferior in the
\ncontext to "unshaped", which is connected with "give it form" in the next line.
\n* Sri Aurobindo himself corrected a number of these mistakes when the lines
\nwere read to him later. For example, "His signs" near the top of the dictated
\npassage reproduced in the facsimile on page 66 makes little sense; it was evidently a mishearing of "He signs", to which Sri Aurobindo corrected it when he
\nrevised the typescript. But he did not always get a chance to correct mistakes of
\nthis kind. Several of them occurred when his last dictated revision was taken
\ndown. Even if the lines were read back to him, the similarity in sound seems to
\nhave made it possible in some cases for him to hear the word he had intended
\ninstead of the word the scribe had written down. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 52<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwas emended to "sun-beams".* Likewise, "half-seeing" and
\n"unforeseeing" were emended to "half-seen" and "unforeseen"
\nin 1954 and 1970."In these cases, not only did the scribe
\nintroduce an extra vowel with a distinct sound in each of the
\nwords presumably dictated by Sri Aurobindo, but he also misheard "m" and "n" as "ng". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is easier to explain how "origin of" could have been
\nmisheard as "originer of". It must be remembered that in Sri
\nAurobindo’s British pronunciation, "er" at the end of a word
\nwould not have had a distinct "r" sound and could have been
\nindistinguishable from the vowel of the following "of". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen Sri Aurobindo was asked about the "r"s in his line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nNever a rarer creature bore his shaft, <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nhe referred in his reply to "three sonant r’s, the others being
\ninaudible".36<\/font> By "sonant r’s" he would have meant the first
\ntwo "r"s of "rarer" and the first "r" of "creature". The other
\nfour "r"s, occurring at the ends of words, were inaudible in
\nhis pure British accent. This explains how the scribe could
\nmishear "mire" as "maya" when Sri Aurobindo dictated: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nThis mire must harbour the orchid and the rose…. <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIf Sri Aurobindo lingered slightly at the end of "origin",
\nthat could have been enough to account for "originer". For
\nthe scribe had managed to hear "sunbeams" as "sunbeings"
\nearlier in the revision of this canto; he could more easily have
\nreceived the impression of a British "er" (with a silent "r")
\nafter the "n" of "origin", possibly merging with the following
\n"of". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus the coinage of "originer" would have been the scribe’s
\nunintentional creative act. It is hardly likely that it was Sri
\nAurobindo’s innovation, contradicting his consistent rejection <\/font><\/p>\n

\n__________________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n*In 1993 this was changed to "sunbeams",
\nwithout a hyphen, to agree with the other occurrences of this word in Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 53<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nof such travesties of the English language. For Sri Aurobindo
\nsaw signs that English, which he hoped to lift into a language
\nof the gods, was going, "to the dogs" instead. But he surely
\ndid not intend Savitri<\/i> to contribute to this regrettable development. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWith "origin", the line is perfect in sense and rhythm and
\nharmonises with its context. Sri Aurobindo has said that the
\nstyle of expression in Savitri<\/i> aims at "force, directness and
\nspiritual clarity and reality ".37 <\/font>Accordingly he used the simplest and most straightforward words in speaking of the "consciousness mind cannot touch": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt has no home on earth, no centre in man, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nYet is the source of all things thought and done, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe fount of the creation and its works, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt is the origin of all truth here, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe sun-orb of mind’s fragmentary rays, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nInfinity’s heaven that spills the rain of God, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe Immense that calls to man to expand the Spirit, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe wide Aim that justifies his narrow attempts, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA channel for the little he tastes of bliss. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 54<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nA METRICAL PROBLEM<\/a><\/font><\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n14.195O, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/i>He has
\nmade a<\/u><\/b> 
\n<\/i>thick and narrowing hedge<\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 166, line 1)<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/i>He has made into a thick and narrowing
\nhedge<\/font><\/p>\n

\nLike the previous item, this is a dictated line for
\nwhich there is
\nno manuscript in Sri Aurobindo’s hand. Here again, a close
\nconsideration of what Sri Aurobindo called the "language and 
\nverse technique"38 <\/font>of Savitri<\/i> is required.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSeveral emendations
\nwere made in past editions of Savitri <\/i>where the editors noticed metrical
\nirregularities which <\/i>they
\nbelieved Sri Aurobindo  wrote extensively on metre. His practice was
\nconsistent
\nwith his theory. Such questions have been judged according to his own statements
\nand his practice in Savitri<\/i>, not by any outside standard. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nMetrical defects or irregularities of the kind that
\nhave been
\ncorrected in different editions are not found in lines of the
\nfinal version of Savitri<\/i>  that were written by Sri Aurobindo in his own hand.*
\nThey occur in dictated lines or came about
\nthrough incorrect transcription. They usually involve the omission of a word or
\nsyllable that is obviously needed or can
\nnaturally be supplied. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe metrical irregularity of the present line
\nwithout "into"
\nsuggests that the line was not printed exactly as Sri Aurobindo had dictated it.
\nWith "into", the meaning is the same
\nand the rhythm is consistent with the metre of Savitri<\/i>. We will
\nsee that there is strong support for considering the previous <\/font><\/p>\n

\n_______________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\n* Sri Aurobindo said he had accepted in
\nSavitri<\/i> some of the freedoms of modern poetry, including "irregularities
\nintroduced into the iambic run of the metre"
\n(Savitri,<\/i> p. 749). But he added that he had done this only where he
\n"thought it rhythmically justified: fo all freedom must have a truth in it and
\nan order". Sri Aurobindo was a perfectionist in the matter of poetic rhythm. The
\nexpressive "irregularities" to which he refers are quite different from the
\nstumbling rhythm of lines that were not written down or printed as he intended. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 55<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nversion to be incompatible with Sri Aurobindo’s metrical technique". There is also evidence that "into" could have been
\nomitted by accident in the processes of dictation or printing. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nMetrical Emendations in Earlier Editions <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSimilar metrical defects have been removed at various stages
\nin the history of Savitri.<\/i> For example, the line printed in the 1950 edition (page 273) <\/b> in the form <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nBut listened for the all-seeing Thought <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nhad only four feet and so was metrically irregular in a poem
\nin iambic pentameter, the metre of Savitri.<\/i> In fact, a word was
\nmissing; "veiled", found before "all-seeing" in the revised type-
\nscript, was omitted when Book Two was printed in two large
\nfascicles in 1948. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe omission occurred because of the way the revision
\nwas marked on the typescript. The last part of an earlier version of the line was first revised to "the hidden all-seeing
\nThought". Then "hidden" was crossed out and "veiled" was
\nwritten above it. The compositor must not have seen that the
\nword written above was part of this line. The missing word
\nwas restored in 1954, when Amal remembered a letter in which
\nSri Aurobindo had quoted this line with "veiled". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOn the second page of the Book of Fate, two lines in the 1951 edition were faulty in sense as well as metre: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA change felt upon the singer’s mood,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd death that climbs immortality. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThese lines were part of two pages that had been
\nomitted accidentally when this canto was printed in Sri Aurobindo
\nMandir Annual<\/i> in August 1950. The lines in question were
\nmisread when these pages were transcribed for the first edition.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 56<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWhen the 1954 edition was being prepared, Amal
\ncommented about the first line: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLimping line. Perhaps it should run: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA change was felt upon the singer’s mood. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut I am not sure. A "change" is not usually felt "upon"
\nbut "in". Possibly the correct words are "fell upon"\u2014but
\nthen we can’t bring "was" in and the limp remains. Consult the original. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter looking at the original, this line was corrected to what
\nthe scribe had actually written at Sri Aurobindo’s dictation, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA change now fell upon the singer’s mood,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhile the other line was similarly restored to its correct form; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd death that climbs <\/b> to immortality. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nDictated lines originally taken down by the scribe in a
\nmetrically irregular form pose a more difficult problem. For
\nthere are no tape recordings of Sri Aurobindo’s dictation to
\ncompare with what the scribe wrote. Fortunately, most of the
\nmistakes are obvious. A number of metrically defective lines,
\nor which Sri Aurobindo cannot have been responsible in that
\nform resulted from the omission of clearly necessary words or syllables in
\npassages that were dictated or revised by dictation. If what was missing was sufficiently obvious, it could be
\nrestored by the editors with full confidence that Sri Aurobindo’s
\nintention was being carried out. Several such defects were
\ncorrected before the first edition was printed, and others in 1954.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nFor example, a line that now appears on page 692 was
\nhear and written by the scribe as <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 57<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nEven the charm of thy luring voice, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere a syllable was lacking so that the line had only four
\nfeet. On a typed copy used for the first edition\u2014not the typescript Sri Aurobindo revised by dictation, but a later retyped
\ncopy of it\u2014"luring" was changed to "alluring": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nEven the charm of thy alluring voice, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhich is undoubtedly what Sri Aurobindo had dictated. The
\nscribe could easily have failed to hear the "a" between the
\n"y" and the "1" sounds. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn this instance, the line in its uncorrected form could not
\nbe read as iambic pentameter at all. There were not enough
\nsyllables. Since Sri Aurobindo was a master of metre and unlikely to be responsible for a totally unmetrical line, we can be
\nsure in such a case that what the scribe wrote was not what
\nthe poet intended. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut when a line can be read metrically by a forced scansion, we may be faced with a more serious problem. Even in
\nsuch cases, the solution is sometimes self-evident. The scribe
\ninserted the second of the following lines at Sri Aurobindo’s
\ndictation on the typescript of Book Six, Canto Two: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA growing register of calamities
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIs the past’s account, future’s book of Fate: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nbut this is awkward from the point of view of English as well
\nas rhythm. A "the" inserted before "future’s" in 1951 is unlikely to be challenged; no one will quarrel with the assumption that the article was inadvertently dropped by the scribe.
\nYet the line already had ten syllables without the second "the".
\nBy an artificial scansion (pyrrhic, trochee, spondee, two iambs),
\nit might have passed as an irregular line of iambic pentameter
\nif the rhythm alone had been in question. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnother instance illustrates further the tendency for small
\nwords like articles and prepositions to suffer in the process of <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 58<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\ndictation. Near the end of Book Six, Canto One, the 1951
\nedition has the line <\/font><\/p>\n

\nEach year a mile from the heavenly Way, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere both meaning and rhythm are problematic, though there
\nare ten syllables and a forced scansion as pentameter is not impossible. Both problems were solved in 1954 by emending
\nit to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nEach year a mile upon the heavenly Way, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nas suggested by Amal. But the word written on the typescript,
\nwhere the line was revised by dictation, is "from". It appears
\nthat the scribe correctly marked other changes in this line and
\npassage, but inexplicably put the wrong preposition here. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLeaving aside other cases where not only metre, but grammar and sense clearly show that a word or syllable was omitted by the scribe in taking dictation, let us look now at a line
\nin the Epilogue where there is a problem very similar to the
\none we have set out to solve. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe line was written by the scribe and printed in 1951
\n(page 342) in the form <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOn the ignorant breast of dubious earth,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nbut it was emended in 1954 as a result of Amal’s observation: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe line does not scan well and there is no psychological
\njustification for the unnatural scansion. "On" should be
\nreplaced by "Upon". Consult the original. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBy "unnatural scansion", Amal was referring to the fact that
\nto read this line as pentameter, one has to scan it not according to the natural rhythm of the words, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOn the \u00edglnorant bre\u00e1st ׀of d\u00falbious e\u00e1rth, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 59<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwhich would be a four-foot line, but <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOn the ׀ ignorlant bre\u00e1st ׀ of d\u00falbious e\u00e1rth, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere the trochee in the second foot, after a pair of unaccented syllables, violates Sri Aurobindo’s injunction: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen you want to put in a trochee support it by a strong
\nsyllable just preceding it….39 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nConsultation of the original by Nolini and Nirod would
\nhave shown that the first word of the line written there was
\nindeed "On". But they would also have seen that it was a
\ndictated line, not one written by Sri Aurobindo in his own
\nhand. Considering the metrical factor in this light, they accepted Amal’s suggestion and emended the line to what is now
\nprinted, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nUpon the ignorant breast of dubious earth, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere the rhythm is normal and the meaning is precisely the
\nsame as in the 1951 version. The editors were evidently convinced that this was what Sri Aurobindo must have dictated
\nand that "On" was the scribe’s mistake. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nMetrical Emendation in the New Edition <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWith this background, we may turn to the dictated, line that
\nhas been emended for similar reasons in the 1993 edition. It
\noccurs in Book Two, Canto Five, in a sentence which in the
\n1948 fascicle began: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe is satisfied with his common average kind
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd tomorrow’s hopes and the body’s animal care…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen he revised the fascicle after it was printed, Sri Aurobindo expanded this to: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 60<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nHe is satisfied with his common average kind; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTomorrow’s hopes are his, the old rounds of thought; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis old familiar interests and desires
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe has made a hedge planned to defend his life…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo further revised these lines in the proofs of the
\nfirst edition. These proofs, unfortunately, were not preserved; so what was printed in that edition is the only evidence of his last revision of Part One. The passage was printed in 1950 as
\nfollows: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe is satisfied with his common average kind; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTomorrow’s hopes and his old rounds of thought,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis old familiar interests and desires
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe has made a thick and narrowing hedge
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nDefending his small life from the Invisible…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAmal commented in 1954 on the fourth line: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLimping line\u2014one foot missing. It is impossible to scan it
\nas a pentameter as it stands: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe has ׀ m\u00e1de a ׀ th\u00edck and ׀ n\u00e1rrowling h\u00e9dge. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThree consecutive trochees in the middle are too jerky and
\ninadmissible. The natural scanning is: He has made I a
\nthick I and narlrowing hedge. But this gives a four-foot
\nline. Look up the original. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe have seen Sri Aurobindo’s statement that a trochee, if
\nit is not the first foot of a line, needs to be supported "by a
\nstrong syllable just preceding it". He added that by carelessness in this matter one could even "break the spine of the
\nline". This consideration is as applicable here, where there is
\na trochee in the second foot after two light syllables, as in the
\nline in the Epilogue that was emended for this reason in 1954. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut here there is the further problem that this supposedly <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 61<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\niambic line consists mainly of trochees, with only one iamb at
\nthe end. Amal’s objection to three trochees in the middle of a
\nline was not just an idiosyncrasy of his. Sri Aurobindo himself  has warned that "trochees must not be so arranged as to turn
\nan iambic into a trochaic line" : <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the iambic anapaestic line a trochee followed by an iamb
\ncan be allowed in the first foot; elsewhere it has to be admitted with caution so as not to disturb the rhythm.40
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn his analysis of the  metrical modulations in Webster’s line  <\/font><\/p>\n

\nCover her face, my eyes dazzle, she died young
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhere the second foot  is the only iamb, Sri Aurobindo pointed
\nout: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nNevertheless the basic system of the metre or at least some
\nform of its spirit asserts itself even here by a predominant
\nbeat on the final syllable of most of the feet: all the variations are different  from each other, none predominates
\nso as to oust and  supplant the iamb in its possession of the 
\nmetric base.41 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBoth conditions-the "predominant beat on the final syllable"
\nand the variations being "different from each other"\u2014
\nare lacking in the case of a so-called iambic line with three trochees in the
\nmiddle and a weak pyrrhic as the first foot. In the line printed in 1950\u2013<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe had made a thick and narrowing hedge…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\u2013we have either a four-foot line or one where the
\ndominant trochee does "oust and  supplant the iamb <\/b> in its
\npossession of the metric base".<\/font><\/p>\n

\nDid Sri Aurobindo, in his final revision in 1950,
\nforget momentarily the subtle laws of metrical movement which he <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 62<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nhad expounded so lucidly in his prose writings and embodied
\nwith a spontaneous and unfailing mastery in so many thousands of lines of Savitri?<\/i> If the irregularity had created a forceful
\neffect of some kind, it might have been justified along the lines
\nof Sri Aurobindo’s analysis of the rhythm of <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis truth broke in in a triumph of fire.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo observed: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nObviously this is not a "natural rhythm", but there is no
\nobjection to its being forced when it is a forcible and violent lent action that has to be suggested. * <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut in the passage about our "common average kind", nothing out of the ordinary seems called for. There is no suggestion of a "forcible and violent action" to justify a rhythm that
\nis more irregular than anything found elsewhere in Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nTo avoid supposing an unaccountable lapse in Sri Aurobindo’s metrical skill, we may infer that he actually dictated: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe has made into a thick and narrowing hedge…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBy making explicit the implied "into", the line becomes readable as pentameter according to the natural rhythm of the
\nwords. It also harmonises with the movement of the rest of the sentence, whose first line begins and ends similarly with
\nanapaests: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* Savitri,<\/i> p. 771. Sri Aurobindo scanned this line: "iamb, reversed spondee,
\npyrrhic, trochee, iamb". The pyrrhic-trochee sequence is what makes the
\nrhythm "forced". Sri Aurobindo has explained that this sequence works
\nhere because "triumph" is not an ordinary trochee; the second syllable is
\n"slightly weighted" because "the concluding consonants exercise a certain
\ncheck and delay in the voice". Otherwise "in a triumph of fire" would be a
\ndouble anapaest and the line a "quadruped" according to Sri Aurobindo.
\nThis shows clearly that he would have scanned "He has made a thick and narrowing hedge" as four feet, not five. One cannot easily believe that he
\nmeant to include such a line in Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 63<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nHe is satisfied with his
\ncommon average kind…. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIt is surprising that this solution to
\nthe problem noticed by
\nAmal in 1954 was not discovered then, when "On" was
\nchanged to "Upon" in the Epilogue for similar but less compelling reasons. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAssuming that Sri Aurobindo dictated
\n"into", how was it
\ndropped? We have seen instances of the scribe’s omission or
\nconfusion of minor words like articles and prepositions in taking dictation. This happened most often when there were complicated changes to be marked\u2014as here, where one line was
\nexpanded to two when the proofs were revised. It is also possible that the scribe wrote "into" on the proof, but it was
\nmissed by the compositor, like "veiled" in the first example
\ncited above. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nWhatever the explanation, since Sri
\nAurobindo dictated
\nthis line in his last revision of Part One, he would have had no
\nchance to correct the omission. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nPage – 64<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

\n
\nRESTORATION AND OMISSION OF LINES <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n15. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA<\/i> fire flaming low in Nature’s grate,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA journey’s toilsome trudge with death for goal? <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 609, lines 32-34)
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA fire flaming low in Nature’s grate,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA wave that breaks upon a shore in Time,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA journey’s toilsome trudge with death for goal? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s dictated revision of this sentence in a speech of Death can be seen in the lower half of the facsimile on page
\n66. The final version is: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHow shall the Ideal tread earth’s dolorous soil <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhere life is only a labour and a hope, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA child of Matter and by Matter fed, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA fire flaming low in Nature’s grate, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA wave that breaks upon a shore in Time, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA journey’s toilsome trudge with death for goal? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA draft in Sri Aurobindo’s handwriting has all of these lines in
\nthe same order and with almost the same words as were marked
\nby the scribe in taking down the final dictated changes. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut the version Sri Aurobindo had originally dictated corresponded to an earlier draft in which the lines were in a different order. The transposition of lines to the final sequence
\nwas indicated using arrows and numbers from "1" to "4". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLater, when the scribe made a fair copy of this passage, he
\noverlooked the line marked "4" (which is above "1" and "3",
\nwith the number "4" written after the cancelled words "It
\nis"). The fair copy is reproduced on page 67. Thus the line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA wave that breaks upon a shore in Time,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\ncame to be omitted from the first three editions of Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 65<\/font>
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nA dictated passage in Book Ten, Canto Two <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nWhen the scribe copied the lines transposed with arrows and
\nnumbers in the lower half of the page, he overlooked the line
\nmarked "4". "His signs" near the top of the page was apparently a mishearing of Sri Aurobindo’s dictation; it was corrected on the typescript to "He signs". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 66<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n<\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nA page of the fair copy of Book Ten, Canto Two <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nBefore the seventh line from the bottom, the copyist omitted
\n"A wave that breaks upon a shore in Time," seen in the previous facsimile. The miscopying of "thought" as "thirst" in the
\nfifth line from the bottom of the page was corrected on the
\ntypescript.<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 67<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIn the fair copy of the dictated version, the last
\nline was left out. Since the line was not deleted by Sri Aurobindo, but was
\nomitted due to an oversight by the copyist, it is restored to the text in the
\nnew edition. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThis line and the one discussed in the previous
\nitem were not printed in the 1954 edition, so the Mother did not translate them
\nwhen she rendered the first three cantos of Book Ten into French. Nor did she
\ntranslate the following lines in these cantos: <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIn some positive Non-being’s purposeless Vast
\n<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nHis virtues don the Ideal’s skiey robe
\n<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nTo solace its dull work in Matter’s jail,
\n<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nA glory is the gold and glimmering moon,
\n<\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nMy heart is stronger than thy bonds, O Death.42
\n<\/font> <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nThese lines are found in all editions of
\nSavitri,<\/i> but are missing <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nPage – 68<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nfrom the Mother’s translation. Clearly,
\nthe fact that she did
\nnot translate certain lines cannot be used, as some have inconsistently tried to use it, as an argument against including those
\nlines in the English text. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n
\nLines Restored in the
\nNew Edition <\/font> <\/b> <\/p>\n

\nThe preceding two items are examples of
\nlines that were left
\nout when the text of Savitri<\/i> was copied, typed and printed.
\nThirty-two such previously omitted lines have been included
\nin the Revised Edition: <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAnd in their body’s lives acclimatise <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nHardly for a moment
\nglimpsed viewless to Mind, <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAcross the cries of anguish and of joy, <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nOur helpless hearts to enshrine the
\nOmnipotent’s force. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nHe has built a million
\nfigures of his power; <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIn an immaterial substance linked to
\nours <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nBut never can we know and truly live <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nA seed-idea is parent of our acts <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nApart, unbound, he
\nlooked on all things done. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe Power, the Light, the Bliss no word
\ncan speak <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nSeized, vibrant,
\nkindling with the inspired word, <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAlready I met her in my spirit’s dream. <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 69<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIn its formidable
\ncircuit through the Void; <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThere are dire alchemies of the human
\nheart
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nInto the unreadable mystery of Time <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nWho willed to form or feign a universe
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIn the cold and endless emptiness of Space? <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAgainst the stumblings of man’s pervert
\nwill,
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAn inner voice could speak the unreal’s Word; <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nWhat profit have I of my animal birth; <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nEternity upheld the minute’s acts <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nA tree that raised its tranquil head to
\nheaven<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Luxuriating in verdure, summoning
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe breeze with amorous wideness of its boughs,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n He chose and with his steel assailed the arm
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nBrown, rough and strong hidden in its emerald dress. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIn her vast silent spirit motionless <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nMy will too is a law, my strength a
\ngod. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nHeaven’s chanting heralds waken
\ndim-eyed Space. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nA wave that breaks upon a shore in
\nTime, <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAnd evolution’s slow arrested plan. <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nEach marshalling his company of rays.43
\n<\/font> <\/font>\n<\/p>\n

\nThe inclusion of these lines
\nconstitutes the most noticeable
\ndifference between the old and new editions of Savitri.<\/i> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 70<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nFive lines that were relegated to
\nfootnotes in the 1970 edition have now been reinstated: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLending her speech to the surface soul
\non earth
\nShe uttered the suffering in the world’s dumb heart
\nAnd man’s revolt against his ignorant fate. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAs forced by inescapable fate we part
\n<\/font> <\/p>\n

\nFrom one whom we shall never see again….44
\n<\/font> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nOn the other hand, four lines that were
\nremoved from the text
\nto a footnote in 1970 are treated likewise as an alternative
\nversion in the Revised Edition. Three other repetitive lines have
\nbeen omitted from the text of this edition, where there were
\nreasons to conclude that Sri Aurobindo did not intend the
\nrepetitions. These will be discussed in the following pages. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nLines Added and Omitted
\nin Early Editions <\/font> <\/b> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nA brief account of how the length of
\nSavitri<\/i> has increased and
\ndiminished from one edition to the next will place the addition and omission of
\nlines in perspective and show the consistency of editorial decisions in this regard from 1951 to 1993.
\nThe aim throughout has been to include the lines Sri Aurobindo intended to include and to omit the lines he intended to omit. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe first editorial work on Savitri<\/i>
\nwas the preparation of
\nthe second volume of the first edition. Several cantos had already come out in fascicles and journal instalments before Sri
\nAurobindo’s passing. They included Book Six, Canto One,
\nwhich was published in Sri Aurobindo Mandir Annual<\/i> in August 1950. Near the beginning of this canto, the scribe had
\nturned two pages at once while copying and had left out fifty-two lines. These lines were missing in the version of the canto
\nthat received Sri Aurobindo’s final revision and was printed
\nduring his lifetime. The lengthy omitted passage was found by <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 71<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthe editors and reincorporated in the
\ntext in 1951.45 <\/font> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAfter the first edition appeared, a
\nsmall change in the length-k
\nof the published poem came in 1954. It was discovered then
\nthat a revised typescript of the end of Book Four, Canto Two
\nhad been overlooked when this canto was published in The
\nAdvent<\/i> in August 1950. The 1951 edition reproduced the version in The Advent,<\/i> where the last section of the canto was
\nbased on an unrevised carbon copy of the typescript. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s dictated revision,
\nmarked on the typescript
\nincluded the reworking of five lines and the addition of one
\nnew line, <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nShe schooled her heavenly strain to
\nbear its touch, <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nwhich appeared in print for the first
\ntime in 1954. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe editors of the second edition made
\nextensive changes
\nin the printed form of this passage in order to carry out Sri
\nAurobindo’s last alterations. They were evidently concerned,
\nnot with maintaining the immutability of the published text,
\nbut with making it correspond as closely as possible to Sri
\nAurobindo’s intentions. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe editors in 1954 followed here a
\nprocedure that has
\nbeen adopted consistently in preparing the 1993 edition. This
\nis the comparison of the various manuscripts, typescripts and
\nprinted versions to ensure that the text is published exactly as
\nSri Aurobindo wrote and revised it. Such comparisons were
\nmade much less systematically in the work on the early editions. But whenever discrepancies were noticed in the
\nspot-checking of manuscripts, fair copies and typescripts, they were
\ncorrected. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nIn 1954 the length of the printed form
\nof Savitri<\/i> increased
\nslightly. In 1970 it was reduced. Nine lines were removed from
\nthe text and placed in footnotes as alternatives, in order to
\navoid repetitions which the editors believed Sri Aurobindo did
\nnot intend. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 72<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n

   <\/font><\/p>\n

\nRepetitions Not Intended by Sri
\nAurobindo<\/b> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo explained that some kinds
\nof repetition are part
\nof the technique of Savitri.<\/i> This does not mean that he indulged in or
\njustified indiscriminate repetition. He made this clear: <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nOf course where the repetition amounts
\nto a mistake, I
\nwould have no hesitation in making a change; for a mistake must always be acknowledged and corrected.46 <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nAccording to Sri Aurobindo, repetition
\n"must be rejected" if
\nit "is clumsy or awkward, too burdensomely insistent, at once
\nunneeded and inexpressive or amounts to a disagreeable and meaningless echo".47
\n<\/font> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nUnwanted repetition could come into the
\nprinted text in various ways. Most often it was due to
\nthe scribe’s not cancelling the old version of a line when Sri Aurobindo dictated a
\nrevised version of the same line. This happened more rarely
\nthan might have been expected, considering the complexity of  the dictated revision of Savitri.<\/i> <\/font> <\/p>\n

\nThe next four items are the cases where
\nthe repetition of similar or identical lines has been
\navoided in the new edition,
\nfor reasons that will be explained. <\/font> <\/p>\n

\n

 
\n<\/font>Page – 73<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n17, 1950, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt made the breath a happy mystery
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd brought a love sustaining pain with joy; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA love that bore the cross of pain with joy…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 312, lines 33-34)
\n<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt made the breath a happy mystery.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA love that bore the cross of pain with joy…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen the 1954 edition was being prepared, Amal put a bar
\nnear
\nto the second and third of the above lines in the 1950 edition, both ending with the same words, "pain with joy".
\nHe commented: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe repetition seems too inartistic to be deliberate. I think
\nthere has been a misreading of the original. Perhaps a semicolon should be put after the line ending with "mystery",
\nand the next one "And brought a love sustaining pain with joy" should be omitted or else a comma put after this very
\nline and the next one "A love that bore…." omitted. Consult the original. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe original in this case is a copy of the 1947 fascicle marked
\nwith Sri Aurobindo’s dictated revision. We do not know whether the editors in
\n1954 were able to locate it amid the huge mass of  material relating to the various stages of the revision of savitri<\/i><\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhat the revised fascicle shows is that only two lines were printed
\nin 1947: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt made the breath a happy mystery
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd brought a love sustaining pain with joy; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nfollowed immediately by a line that now comes a little later
\nwith one word altered: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAffirming in life a secret ecstasy…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/font>Page – 74<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nAt Sri Aurobindo’s dictation, the scribe put a full stop after
\n"mystery". In the right margin, he wrote these four lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA love that bore the cross of pain with joy,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nEudaemonised the sorrow of the world,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nMade happy the weight of long unending Time,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe secret caught of God’s felicity. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe prominent full stop after "mystery" indicates that the next
\nline printed in the fascicle was to be replaced by the lines written in the margin. This is obvious, since "And brought …"
\ncannot be the beginning of a sentence. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe scribe, however, neglected to cancel "And brought a
\nlove sustaining pain with joy" when he put the full stop at the
\nend of the preceding line. When the first edition was printed,
\ninstead of the line after the full stop being deleted as Sri Aurobindo evidently intended, the full stop itself was omitted and
\nboth versions of the same line were printed one after the other. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the 1993 edition, Sri Aurobindo’s clearly indicated intention of replacing the first version ("And brought a love
\nsustaining pain with joy") with the second ("A love that bore
\nthe cross of pain with joy") has been carried out. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 75<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n18. 1951 and 1954 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she fell to the level of human mind,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA field of mortal grief and Nature’s law
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe shared, she bore the common lot of men
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt what common hearts endure in Time.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nVoicing earth’s question to the inscrutable power
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe queen now turned to the still immobile seer: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAssailed by the discontent in Nature’s depths,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPartner in the agony of dumb driven things
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd all the misery, all the ignorant cry,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPassionate like sorrow questioning heaven she spoke.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she lost her spirit’s tranquil poise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she shared the lot of common souls
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd bore the heavy hand of Death and Time
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt the anguish in life’s stricken deeps.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Lending her speech to the surface soul on earth
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe uttered the suffering in the world’s dumb heart
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd man’s revolt against his ignorant fate.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\n1970 edition<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she fell to the level of human mind,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n A field of mortal grief and Nature’s law
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe shared, she bore the common lot of men
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt what common hearts endure in Time.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Voicing earth’s question to the inscrutable power
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe queen now turned to the still immobile seer: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAssailed by the discontent in Nature’s depths,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Partner in the agony of dumb driven things
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd all the misery, all the ignorant cry,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPassionate like. sorrow questioning heaven she spoke.\u00b9<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Footnote:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n\u00b9Alternative to the passage starting with "Awhile\u201d:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she lost her spirit’s tranquil poise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she shared the lot of common souls
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd bore the heavy hand of Death and Time
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt the anguish in life’s stricken deeps.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Lending her speech to the surface soul on
\n<\/b>earth
\n<\/b> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe uttered the suffering in the world’s <\/b> dumb heart <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 76<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nAnd man’s revolt against his ignorant fate. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 43 7, lines 16-28)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she fell to the level of human mind,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA field of mortal grief and Nature’s law; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe shared, she bore the common lot of men
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt what common hearts endure in Time.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nVoicing earth’s question to the inscrutable power
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe queen now turned to the still immobile seer: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAssailed by the discontent in Nature’s depths,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPartner in the agony of dumb driven things
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd all the misery, all the ignorant cry,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPassionate like sorrow questioning heaven she spoke.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nLending her speech to the surface soul on earth
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe uttered the suffering in the world’s dumb heart
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd man’s revolt against his ignorant fate. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative to the first four lines:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she lost her spirit’s tranquil poise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she shared the lot of common souls
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd bore the heavy hand of Death and Time
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt the anguish in life’s stricken deeps. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo revised the second typed copy of Book Six,
\nCanto Two, late in 1950. As this was his last work on Savitri,
\n<\/i>he had no chance to check how accurately the typescript was
\nmarked with the extensive alterations and additions he dictated. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAt the beginning of the typescript, before Sri Aurobindo
\nstarted revising it, the long speech by the Queen was preceded
\nby seven lines rather than by almost a full page as at present.
\nSri Aurobindo expanded one of these lines, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLost for a while the spirit’s tranquil poise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nto four lines written between the typed lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she lost her spirit’s tranquil poise,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she shared the lot of common souls <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 77<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nAnd bore the heavy hand of Death and Time
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt the anguish in life’s stricken deeps. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe then dictated a longer passage, written by the scribe in the
\nleft margin. It included the following lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAwhile she fell to the level of human mind,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA field of mortal grief and Nature’s law;*
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe shared, she bore the common lot of men
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd felt what common hearts endure in Time. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThese lines appear to be a revised form of the four lines already dictated. Not only are there similar phrases, such as
\n"the lot of common souls" and "the common lot of men",
\nbut there is the same sequence of verbs, "she shared", "bore",
\n"and felt". The way the passage has been altered resembles
\nwhat can be seen in hundreds of places in Sri Aurobindo’s
\nmanuscripts when revised lines are compared with the older
\nversions they replace. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe entire opening of the canto, including both sentences
\nbeginning with "Awhile", was copied by the scribe on small
\nslips of paper and crossed out on the typed sheet. The repetitiveness of the two four-line sentences was observed when the
\nCentenary edition was prepared. The version that had been
\ndictated first was removed from the text to a footnote. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlong with these four lines, three more lines were <\/b> included
\nin the same footnote in the 1970 edition: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLending her speech to the surface soul on earth
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe uttered the suffering in the world’s dumb heart
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd man’s revolt against his ignorant fate. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* The semicolon after "law" has been added editorially. As the discussion of the
\nnext item will show, Sri Aurobindo did not always specify the punctuation when
\nhe dictated new lines. Much punctuation had to be added in dictated passages by
\nthe editors in 1951. Here, a comparison with the other version of the same lines <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 78<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThese lines have a general similarity in substance to the six
\nlines beginning "Voicing earth’s question…." A few words
\n("earth", "dumb", "ignorant") occur in both sentences in the
\nsame order. But otherwise the wording is quite different. The
\nevidence for the six-line sentence being a revised version of
\nthe three-line sentence, and intended to replace it, is inconclusive. The justification for the removal of these three lines from
\nthe text in 1970 seems insufficient.* They have therefore been
\nrestored in the Revised Edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe first four lines of the seven-line footnote in the Centenary edition, beginning "Awhile she lost …", are printed in
\nthe Supplement to the Revised Edition as an alternative to the
\nsimilar lines in the text. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n_________________________<\/font><\/p>\n

\nshows that Sri Aurobindo intended "lot" (not "field") to be the object of "shared",
\nas in the phrase "she shared the lot of common souls". The "field" is the "level" to
\nwhich the Queen fell. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n* The same is true with regard to a pair of lines in Book Seven, Canto One.
\nThe two lines shifted to a footnote in 1970 were restored to the text in 1993. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 79<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n19. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe world itself becomes his adversary,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Those he would save are his antagonists: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 448, lines 11-12)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe world itself becomes his adversary,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nThose he would save are his antagonists: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative to the second line:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere, again, one version was first inserted by the scribe between the lines of the typescript of Book Six, Canto Two. Then
\nanother version, partially duplicating the same idea and wording, was written in the margin. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs in the preceding example, the editors believe that Sri
\nAurobindo did not intend the duplication to remain in the
\nfinal text. A similar problem is found later on the same page
\nof the typescript. It was handled in the same way even in the
\nfirst edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe page as typed, before it was read to Sri Aurobindo
\nand revised at his dictation, began with the lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHard is the world-redeemer’s heavy task: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe sees the long march of Time, the little won; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nbetween which were inserted, side by side, two dictated lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe world itself becomes his adversary,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThen, in the left margin, five lines were written sideways by
\nthe scribe, unpunctuated except for the first, with an arrow
\nindicating that they were to be inserted before "He sees the
\nlong march …": <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThose he would save are his antagonists: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis world is in love with its own ignorance <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 80<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nIts darkness turns away from the saviour light <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt gives the cross in payment for the crown <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis work is a trickle of splendour in a long night <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFurther down on the same page, the typescript has the line: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOne yet may come armoured, invincible; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nto the right of which the scribe has written: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis will immobile meets the mobile hour; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nand at the bottom of the page, these lines are typed: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nInvulnerable his soul, his heart unslain,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe lives through the opposition of earth’s Powers <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwith another line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis heart is undismayed by adverse powers, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwritten to the right of "his heart unslain" in the same way as
\n"His will immobile …" appears next to "armoured, invincible". <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n
\nLine Omitted in Early Editions <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nIn a later retyped copy used in preparing the 1951 edition,
\nthis passage was typed exactly as marked by the scribe, including the lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nInvulnerable his soul, his heart unslain,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis heart is undismayed by adverse powers,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe lives through the opposition of earth’s Powers
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd Nature’s ambushes and the world’s attacks. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 81<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nBut in the first edition itself, the second line was removed
\nto a
\nfootnote. An asterisk was put after "unslain," and "His heart
\nis undismayed by adverse powers," was printed in the footnote as an alternative to "Invulnerable his soul …". In 1954
\nthe footnote was dropped in view of Amal’s protest: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nConsidering that the next line is "He lives through the
\nopposition of earth’s Powers", this line with "adverse" in
\nit and the word "powers" is clearly a rejected version and
\nnot an alternative. To give it as an alternative is an insult
\nto Sri Aurobindo’s poetic sense. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus the line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis heart is undismayed by adverse powers, <\/font><\/p>\n

\ndisappeared from print. Only when the 1993 edition was prepared was it thought improper to ignore altogether a line dictated by Sri Aurobindo in his final revision and not cancelled.
\nTherefore this line has been listed in the Supplement as an
\nalternative to the two lines, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nInvulnerable his soul, his
\n<\/b>heart unslain,<\/font><\/p>\n

\n  <\/b>He lives through the <\/b> opposition of earth’s Powers <\/font><\/p>\n

\nboth of which it partly duplicates. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe typescript of this canto contains the written record of
\nSri Aurobindo’s last revision. Yet in editions of Savitri,<\/i> this
\nrevision has not been and cannot be reproduced exactly as it
\nis marked on the typescript. There are unpunctuated lines requiring punctuation. There are lines, as we have just seen,
\nwhich repeat or do not fit in with the others. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSome exercise of editorial judgment was needed to deal
\nwith these problems. Otherwise this canto, one of the most
\nimportant in the epic, would have appeared in a rough form
\nnot matching the perfection of the rest. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 82<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nLine Omitted in the New Edition <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\nNear the top of the typed page described above, two lines
\nwere inserted by the scribe between the typed lines. The second of these, written to the right of the other, is: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA longer passage written in the left margin begins with a line
\nthat expresses the same idea: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThose he would save are his antagonists…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn 1951, both of these lines were printed one after the other.
\nWhen the 1954 edition was being prepared, Amal put a star
\nnext to "Those he would save …" and asked whether this line
\nmight have been "meant as an alternative to the preceding".
\nIn his opinion it was "advisable to put a footnote". But this
\nwas not done. The matter was reconsidered only many years later. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWe have seen that everything written by the scribe on this typed page cannot be taken at face value. It is possible that, as
\nAmal suspected in 1954, the similar lines are alternatives which
\nSri Aurobindo left with the intention of coming back and
\nmaking a choice between them\u2014like "taught" and "vistaed"
\n(item 10). Or else he dictated the second line with the intention, not understood by the scribe or at least not marked on
\nthe typescript, of cancelling the first line and replacing it by the revised version. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s manner of revising his lines has to be taken into account. Certain changes, such as the transposition of
\nwords to a different order, are typical of his alteration of a
\nline to another form of the same line. For example, Sri Aurobindo changed the opening line of Savitri<\/i> from one of its early versions, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nNear was the hour of the transfiguring gods <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 83<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe hour was near of the transfiguring gods
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nand through three or four more stages to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt was the hour before the gods awake. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe transposition of "Near was the hour" to "The hour was
\nnear" did not affect the meaning. Even the more significant
\nchanges only resulted in a new form of the same line taking
\nthe place of older versions. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOccasionally in the final manuscripts of Savitri,<\/i> and more
\nfrequently in earlier drafts, we find variants of the same line
\nwith no indication of Sri Aurobindo’s choice between them.
\nThus, in his last handwritten version of Book Two, Canto Six,
\nhe wrote these lines side by side:* <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis to Life’s music gives its anthem swell.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA million motives in Life’s music swell. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThese lines express enough variation of the same idea that
\nthey could perhaps have been turned into two distinct lines.
\nAs it is, the repetition of "Life’s music" and especially "swell"
\nat the end of both lines makes it highly unlikely that Sri Aurobindo intended them to coexist in the finished poem. In this
\ncase, the scribe took the choice out of Sri Aurobindo’s hands,
\nomitting the second line when he copied the manuscript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn this light, we must try to determine what Sri Aurobindo
\nintended when he dictated the similar lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThose he would save are his antagonists…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* See page 194, line 34 in the 1993 edition. The alternative reading is discussed
\non page 11 of the Supplement. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 84<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nWhat distinguishes these lines? Do they differ enough to show
\nthat the second was meant to be an independent line and not
\na variant of the first? <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOne difference is in word order. "Antagonists" corresponds
\nin the second line to "enemies" in the first, but comes at the
\nend instead of the beginning. But we have seen that Sri Aurobindo often transposed words when he revised a line, as when
\nhe changed "Near was the hour" to "The hour was near".
\nTwo lines with almost the same words rearranged in another
\norder could only be versions of a single line. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe difference between the equivalent phrases, "the beings he came to save" and "those he would save", is also no
\nmore than a normal variation between forms of the same line. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe distinction between "enemies" and "antagonists" remains. There are pairs of lines in Savitri<\/i>
\nthat are identical except for one or two contrasting words, such as: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nMy fate is what my spirit’s strength can make,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nMy fate is what my spirit’s strength can bear….48
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere, the repetition of eight words strongly emphasises the
\ncontrast at the end of the lines between the active sense of
\n"make" and the passive sense of "bear". However, there is no
\nsuch contrast between "enemies" and "antagonists". They are
\npractically synonyms. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nElsewhere in Savitri,<\/i> Sri Aurobindo changed "enemy" in
\nthe line <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger and enemy to hate and slay <\/font><\/p>\n

\nto "adversary" when he revised the typescript. The difference
\nin nuance between the two words is comparable to that between "enemies" and "antagonists". But <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger and adversary to hate and slay49
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nis a variant of the line with "enemy" and could be nothing <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 85<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nelse. Innumerable instances of such variants are seen when
\none studies Sri Aurobindo’s revision of Savitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAs we have seen, a single page of the revised typescript of
\nBook Six, Canto Two, presents us with two pairs of lines whose
\nredundancy goes beyond the kinds of repetition Sri Aurobindo
\ndefended in Savitri.<\/i> In the order in which they have been discussed above, these pairs of lines are: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis heart is undismayed by adverse powers,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nHe lives through the opposition of earth’s Powers…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHis enemies are the beings he came to save.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Those he would save are his antagonists…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf the two pairs, the repetition in the first is perhaps more
\nglaring because the same word occurs at the end of both lines.
\nYet there is less duplication of ideas here than in the other
\npair. Moreover the first line, omitted from the text since 1951,
\nwas actually the last version dictated by Sri Aurobindo. Its
\nomission meant the loss of "undismayed", which is different
\nfrom "unslain" in the previous line. This loss is significant,
\nfor the word "dismay" is not found in any form elsewhere in
\nSavitri.<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the second case, the omission of the line with "enemies",
\nlisting it as an alternative, is a less problematic decision even
\nif it has been made more recently. The second line duplicates
\neverything that is significant in the first; but it says it with a
\nmore compact force, using fewer syllables and putting the
\nstrongest word at the end. The supposition that Sri Aurobindo
\nmeant both lines to remain in the text would imply that he
\nsuffered an unprecedented attack of diffuseness and artistic
\nlaxity in one of his last sessions of work on Savitri.<\/i> This conclusion can be avoided by assuming that he dictated two versions of the same line, as he often did, intending to replace the
\nfirst by the second. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 86<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n20. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBecause thou hast obeyed my timeless will
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy soul of flame,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy heart of love,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI yoke thee to my power of work in Time.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Because thou hast obeyed my timeless will…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 698, lines 19-22)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy soul of flame,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy heart of love,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI yoke thee to my power of work in Time.<\/font><\/p>\n

\n Because thou hast obeyed my timeless will…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis case involves what is perhaps the most complicated page
\nof dictated revision to be found in all the manuscripts of Savitri.
\n<\/i>The complexity of this revision was the reason for the mistake
\nthat occurred when the scribe made a fair copy of the page. A
\nline that Sri Aurobindo had dictated only once was copied in
\ntwo different places, a few lines apart. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOriginally, the page contained twenty-four lines neatly
\nwritten by Sri Aurobindo, probably before 1920, some thirty
\nyears before the passage was taken up for revision in one of
\nthe last phases of the composition of Savitri.<\/i> Most of these
\nlines remain intact in the final version, but forty new lines
\nwere dictated. The scribe wrote a few of these lines in the
\nspaces between the original lines and at the bottom of the
\npage. Most of them he crowded into the left and right margins, turning the page clockwise to write them. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe scribe’s handwriting is not difficult to read. The problem in transcribing this page lies in finding one’s way through
\nthe maze of arrows indicating the relative positions of various
\nlines and-groups of lines. We are concerned with Sri Aurobindo’s expanded version of three lines: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBecause thou hast rejected my hushed calm, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay irrevocably <\/b> on thy neck <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe greatness and the privilege <\/b> of my yoke. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 87<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThe revision of the first line to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut since thou hast refused my maimless Calm <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwas indicated by cancelling all the words except "thou hast"
\nand writing the new words above the old. The other two lines
\nwere cancelled. Six lines in the scribe’s hand appear between
\nand below them, ending: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI bind by thy heart’s passion thy heart to mine
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd lay my splendid yoke upon thy soul. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBetween these six lines, which were evidently dictated first
\nin the expansion of the original three-line sentence, eleven more
\nlines were marked to be inserted at various points by means
\nof several arrows pointing to and from lines and groups of
\nlines written sideways in the right margin. A series of five lines
\nforms the largest of these groups. Its second line, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the blank measureless Unknowable, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nhas a short arrow at the end pointing to a cancelled line <\/b> to the
\nright of it, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI will hold thee for my work in the ways of the world. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter this line was cancelled, three lines were written in an
\navailable space above it and the short arrow was extended
\ninto a longer arrow pointing to these lines in the upper right
\ncorner of the page: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy soul of flame,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy heart of love,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nI yoke thee to my power of work in Time. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe text then continues, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 88<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nBecause thou hast obeyed my timeless will
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nwith a small arrow after this line also, pointing to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd clung to thy choice to share earth’s struggle and
\nfate <\/font><\/p>\n

\nwhich was revised to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBecause thou hast chosen to share earth’s struggle and
\nfate…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen the scribe made a fair copy of this extraordinarily
\ncomplicated page, he at first missed the arrow pointing from
\n"In the blank measureless Unknowable" to the lines beginning "I lay my hands…." As a result, he went on to the next
\nline in the five-line series and copied <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBecause thou hast obeyed my timeless will <\/font><\/p>\n

\na few lines before Sri Aurobindo had intended it to come. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nFrom this line, if he had correctly followed the arrow at
\nthe end of it, the scribe should have gone on to "Because thou
\nhast chosen", written below the cancelled words "And clung
\nto thy choice". He might then have omitted the three lines
\nbeginning "I lay my hands…." But, perhaps because "And clung
\nto thy choice" was cancelled, the scribe did not immediately
\nnotice that this was the line indicated by the small arrow after
\n"timeless will". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nInstead, his eye was caught by the arrow pointing to the
\nthree lines he had inadvertently skipped. Following that arrow, he now copied <\/font><\/p>\n

\nI lay my hands upon thy soul of flame, <\/font><\/p>\n

\nand the other two lines written in the corner of the page. After
\ncopying those lines, he returned to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 89<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nBecause thou hast obeyed my timeless will <\/font><\/p>\n

\nand copied it again, in its proper place. This time he rightly
\ninterpreted the arrow at the end of the line and made his way
\nwithout mishap through the rest of the labyrinth. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus, due to momentary inattentiveness on the part
\n<\/b>of the
\nscribe in his otherwise faultless navigation through his intricate markings, a line dictated only once by Sri Aurobindo was
\ncopied and printed twice. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 90<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n
\nCOMPLEX ALTERNATIVES <\/font><\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n21.1950, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe reposes motionless in its dust of sleep. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 180, line 28)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe refuses motionless in the dust to sleep.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative reading:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe reposes motionless in its dust of sleep. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn his last handwritten version of Book Two, Canto Six, Sri
\nAurobindo wrote a line which is also found in the same form
\nin earlier manuscripts: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe refuses motionless in the dust to sleep. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"She" here is Life. The line describes the irresistible push of
\nthe life-principle towards emergence from its involution in
\nMatter. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut when the scribe made his copy, he read "refuses" as
\n"reposes" and substituted "of" for "to". So the line became: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe reposes motionless in the dust of sleep. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus the indomitable spirit of Life evoked by Sri Aurobindo
\nin his line was reduced to inert passivity due to a misreading
\nof the manuscript. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSurprisingly, the miscopied version was not obviously out
\nof place. It still described the involution of Life in Matter,
\nthough the idea of a push towards emergence was lost. When
\nSri Aurobindo revised the typed copy, a year or two later, he
\nonly altered "the dust" to "its dust" ("its" referring to Matter
\nin the preceding line). So the line became what was printed in
\nthe first edition: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe reposes motionless in its dust of sleep.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBy the mid-1940s, Savitri<\/i> had expanded to many thou<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 91<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nsands of lines. Sri Aurobindo came to depend on assistants to
\ntranscribe each stage of revision before he proceeded to the
\nnext stage, and the accuracy of their transcripts became essential to his method of working. Since he relied on these transcripts more than on his memory, a misreading by the scribe
\nor typist might inflict damage that could not easily be repaired.
\nThe question of memory will be discussed further in connection with the next item. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe word "reposes", which robbed Sri Aurobindo’s line
\nof its original force and turned it into the opposite of what he
\nhad written, was inadvertently introduced into Savitri<\/i> by the
\nscribe. Likewise, the image of "dust of sleep" was the scribe’s
\ncontribution. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBut after these mistakes occurred, Sri Aurobindo changed
\n"the" to "its" before "dust of sleep". His minor revision of a
\nseriously miscopied line creates a situation that could be approached in three ways: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(1) Sri Aurobindo’s alteration of "the" to "its" could be
\naccepted, correcting the miscopied words at the same time.
\nThe line would then read: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nShe refuses motionless in its dust to sleep. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis reads well, is consistent with Sri Aurobindo’s original
\nintention and incorporates his last revision. But the line as a
\nwhole was neither written nor revised by him in this form. He
\nmight not have changed "the" to "its" if his line had been
\ncopied correctly. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n(2) The version with Sri Aurobindo’s last revision could
\nbe considered his final choice, in spite of the copying mistakes
\nit contains and notwithstanding the slightness of the revision
\nafter it was mistranscribed. In that case, the line could remain
\nas it was first printed. But it would contain words that were
\nneither written nor dictated by Sri Aurobindo and it would
\nexpress an idea contrary to what he intended when he wrote
\nthis line. In an edition whose principal purpose is to publish
\nSavitri<\/i> in Sri Aurobindo’s own words, this solution has not
\nbeen adopted. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 92<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n(3) The line could be printed as Sri Aurobindo wrote it
\nbefore it was miscopied. This is what has been done in the
\nnew edition, restoring "refuses" and reverting to "the" in the
\noriginal phrase "in the dust to sleep"; "its", which went with
\n"dust of sleep", is considered to belong to a version that was
\nnot purely Sri Aurobindo’s. But Sri Aurobindo’s slight revision of the miscopied line has been recognised by listing that
\nversion as an alternative in the Supplement. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 93<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n22. 1950, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death appear as its vibrating points; <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 201, line 7)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death are a ceaseless iteration’s points; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative reading:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death appear as its vibrating points; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen Sri Aurobindo revised the first typescript of Book Two,
\nCanto Six, he dictated more than twenty new lines at the end
\nof the canto. They included two lines in which he made use of
\na mathematical idea to express life’s interminable repetition
\nof the same seemingly futile cycle: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn its recurrent decimal of events
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death are a ceaseless iteration’s points…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter "ceaseless", the scribe began the next word with "ir" as
\nif he was going to write "irritation’s"; but he stopped, put a
\n"t" over the right stroke of the "r", and wrote "iteration’s".
\nAt a glance this could be read as "vibration’s" due to the false
\nstart. For the scribe’s "ir" looks somewhat like "vi" (except
\nthat the dot of the "i" is too far to the left; it also cannot be
\n"vi" because the second letter is overwritten by a "t"). In addition, the "te" somewhat resembles a "b" if one overlooks
\nthe crossing of the "t" (a short stroke above the following
\n"r"). <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn fact, the typist did read "iteration’s" as "vibration’s".
\nThe following line appears in the second typescript of the canto: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death are a ceaseless vibration’s points…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nWhen the retyped copy was read to Sri Aurobindo, he noticed
\nthat this line was metrically defective. Accordingly, he revised
\nit to remove this defect. But he did not restore the word "iteration’s" or find another word to bring out the idea of endless repetition which was the sense of the image of the recurring
\ndecimal. As if he was unaware that "vibration’s" was nothing <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 94<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nbut a misreading of his original word, he modified it to "vibrating" and reworded the line to make it metrically correct: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBirth, death appear as its vibrating points…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis is another case where Sri Aurobindo’s revision seems
\ninexplicable unless it is assumed that he revised the version
\npresented to him without necessarily remembering his original words. For if he had recalled his previous version, he would
\nsurely have reverted to it or based any further revision on it,
\nrather than accepting words and ideas substituted accidentally by others. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo himself freely admitted that he did not always remember what he had written. For example, in a letter
\non Savitri<\/i> to Amal Kiran, dated 16 January 1937, he wrote a
\nword ("gather") which Amal could not decipher. Amal left a
\nblank in the typed copy and said, "I can’t read one word".
\nThe next day, Sri Aurobindo filled in the blank in the typed
\ncopy with another word ("combine") and wrote, "I don’t remember the word I used, but it may be combine." <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere it was a question of remembering what he had written on the previous day. But the revision of Savitri<\/i> was spread
\nout over several years from the time when Sri Aurobindo completed his last manuscript of Part One. There were long gaps
\nbetween one stage of revision and the next. A prodigious
\nmemory would have been needed to recall the latest version
\nof each of the thousands of lines of the evolving epic. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo did not claim to have such a memory. Nor
\ndid he consider a display of superhuman powers to be necessary or desirable for his work. He tried repeatedly to correct
\nthe popular misconception that one who comes to do the Divine’s work on earth must make a show of omniscience and
\nomnipotence at every step: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nMy own idea of the matter is that the Avatar’s life and
\nactions are not miracles. If they were, his existence would
\nbe perfectly useless, a mere superfluous freak of Nature.50
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 95<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nThere are two sides of the phenomenon of Avatarhood,
\nthe Divine Consciousness and the instrumental personality. The Divine Consciousness is omnipotent but it has put
\nforth the instrumental personality in Nature under the
\nconditions of Nature and it uses it according to the rules
\nof the game\u2014though also sometimes to change the rules
\nof the game.51 <\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nMen’s way of doing things well is through a clear mental
\nconnection; they see things and do things with the mind
\nand what they want is a mental and human perfection.
\nWhen they think of a manifestation of Divinity, they think
\nit must be an extraordinary perfection in doing ordinary
\nhuman things\u2014… an accurate memory, not making mistakes, not undergoing any defeat or failure…. All that has
\nnothing to do with manifesting the Divine…. These human ideas are false.52
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere Sri Aurobindo mentions memory among the faculties
\nwhose extraordinary perfection is not essential for manifesting the Divine under the conditions of human life. His words
\non this point are clear and categorical. They must be kept in
\nmind in considering lines in Savitri<\/i> which, after they were
\nmiscopied, were partially revised by him without recovering
\ntheir original sense. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe mistyping of "iteration’s" as "vibration’s", and Sri
\nAurobindo’s revision using the word "vibrating", is a notable
\nexample. Here there is no sign that he remembered the word
\nhe had dictated in an earlier session. "Iteration" was the exact
\nword needed for the development of the image of the recurring decimal introduced in the preceding line. That image was
\ngiven precision in this line, which speaks of birth and death as the terminal
\npoints of a series of events repeated like the figures of a circulating decimal. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe idea of vibration, which intruded by accident because
\nof the scribe’s peculiar formation of "iteration’s" and the typist’s
\nconsequent misreading, is clearly less relevant to this context <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 96<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nthan the idea of repetition or iteration. It could hardly be
\notherwise. It would be strange indeed if the lines of Savitri
\n<\/i>were improved by unconscious slips on the part of Sri Aurobindo’s assistants. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the absence of evidence that Sri Aurobindo consciously
\nchanged "Birth, death are a ceaseless iteration’s points" to
\n"Birth, death appear as its vibrating points", the original version has been adopted in the 1993 edition. This version of the
\nline consists purely of Sri Aurobindo’s own words, untainted
\nby any suspicion that accidental factors contributed to it. The
\nother version is listed as an alternative in the Supplement. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 97<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n23. 1950, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n Its signs have stamped their patterns on our lives: <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 176, line 21)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts signs have traced their pattern in our lives: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative reading:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts signs have stamped their patterns on our lives: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe first appearance of this line is in the margin of a notebook used by Sri Aurobindo in 1943. The wording is somewhat different there. "Its" refers to the realm of the greater
\nLife: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts symbols trace their patterns in earth-stuff…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the next version, Sri Aurobindo replaced "symbols trace"
\nby "signs have traced". In his last complete manuscript of
\nPart One, early in 1944, he changed the end of the line so that
\nit became: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts signs have traced their pattern in our lives…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nLater this was copied by the scribe, who substituted
\n"made" for "traced" and "patterns" for "pattern". When the
\ntyped copy of the scribe’s version was read to Sri Aurobindo,
\nprobably in 1946, he dictated the changing of "made" in the
\nmiscopied line to "stamped". A last change, of "in" to "on",
\noccurred in 1947, when the canto appeared in a fascicle whose
\nproofs Sri Aurobindo revised. Thus the line came to be printed: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts signs have stamped their patterns on our lives…. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe history of this line had two phases with two or three
\nstages in each. First Sri Aurobindo wrote and revised his own
\noriginal line. Then he corrected an accidentally altered form
\nof that line. This history has to be seen in the light of the
\nconclusions that can be drawn from the preceding two items.
\nWe have seen that Sri Aurobindo’s revision of a defective copy<\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 98<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nmay not have the value that his revision of the original line
\nitself would have had. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nNormally, his last version of a line is taken to supersede
\nearlier ones. But this is because it is the final result of an unbroken process leading step by step from a lesser to a greater
\nperfection. A transcription error can disrupt this progression.
\nIt may weaken or invalidate the claim of the last version to be
\nthe definitive outcome of a conscious series of connected stages. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn the development of this line from its initial form to the
\npoint at which it was miscopied, the verb "trace" was a constant element. When "made" took its place, this continuity
\nwas broken. Sri Aurobindo changed "made" to "stamped".
\nBut he never directly changed "traced" to "stamped". It is
\ndoubtful that he would have done so, since he had already
\nraised the line to a high degree of perfection through the series
\nof versions with "trace" and "traced". <\/font><\/p>\n

\n"Stamped" is a forceful word and certainly much better
\nhere than "made". But compared with "traced" it has the disadvantage, in this context, of a certain externality. It implies a
\nstrong and sudden, even violent pressure from outside. We see
\nthis in other lines in Savitri,<\/i> such as: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt stamps stain and defect on all things done….53
\n<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe subtler word, "traced", had permitted the use of "in",
\nboth in the early versions, where it was "in earth-stuff", and
\nin the final phrase "in our lives". This was appropriate to
\nsuggest the invisible influence of the greater life-forces which
\nact from the subliminal depths. But with "stamped", "in" did
\nnot work and had to be changed to "on", as Sri Aurobindo
\ndiscovered when he came back to the line. Thus a certain inwardness was lost. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nBesides miscopying "traced", the scribe reversed Sri Aurobindo’s conscious alteration of "patterns" to "pattern". For
\nSri Aurobindo had dropped the "s" of "patterns" when he
\nchanged "earth-stuff" to "our lives". The avoidance of three
\nplurals in one line, ending with the same "z" sound, may have <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 99<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nbeen a factor. But also, Sri Aurobindo must have seen that a
\nsingle ”pattern" gave a deeper sense than separate "patterns".
\n"Pattern" occurs similarly with "trace" in his lines on the
\nmind’s inability to "glimpse the Wonder-worker’s hidden hand" <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd trace the pattern of his magic plans.54<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nConsidering these factors, Sri Aurobindo’s last version of
\nthis line before it was miscopied is printed in the new edition
\nof Savitri.<\/i> The revised form of the miscopied line, printed in
\nprevious editions, is listed as an alternative. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 100<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\n24. 1951, 1954 and 1970 editions<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe eternal Consciousness became the home
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf some unsouled almighty Inconscient; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOne breathed no more the spirit’s native air.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger in the insentient universe,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBliss was the incident of a mortal hour. <\/font><\/p>\n

\n1993 edition (page 455, lines 9-13)<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nEternal Consciousness became a freak
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf an unsouled almighty Inconscient <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd, breathed no more as spirit’s native air,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBliss was an incident of a mortal hour,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger in the insentient universe. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAlternative reading:<\/i> <\/font><\/p>\n

\n[As in previous editions] <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThis is the passage in Savitri<\/i> where Sri Aurobindo formulated
\nmost forcefully the paradox of a world in which the eternal
\nprinciples of Sachchidananda appear as if minor phenomena
\novershadowed by their opposites. His handwritten draft of
\nthese and the preceding lines described concisely in these terms
\nhow the world looked to a mind that arose in the void: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nNon-Being seemed to it Being’s sealed cause,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nIts end and its surrounding circumstance,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd consciousness a freak of Inconscience <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd Bliss an occurrence in the Insentient. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAfter this was copied, Sri Aurobindo expanded it by dictation. He turned the last two lines into a five-line sentence,
\nheightening the paradox by contrasting the present condition
\nof the world with what consciousness and bliss were to the
\nsoul before it "turned away from immortality". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo’s dictated alterations of the previous version were marked by the scribe between the lines and in the
\nmargin of his copy. As marked, the revised lines on consciousness and bliss read: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 101<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nEternal Consciousness became a freak
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf an unsouled almighty Inconscient <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd, breathed no more as spirit’s native
\n<\/b>air<\/font><\/p>\n

\n  <\/b>Bliss was an incident of a mortal hour,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger in the insentient universe. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe third line was written sideways in the left margin, with an
\narrow indicating its position in the sentence. As often happened in the dictation of complex revision, there was a small
\nomission in the punctuation marked by the scribe. For, with a
\ncomma after "And", another comma is evidently needed after
\n"air". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe typed copy of this intricately revised passage contains
\ntwo errors which significantly affected the subsequent revision. The typist misread "freak" as "peak" and typed a full
\nstop after "air". Thus the lines became what was read to Sri
\nAurobindo some time later: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nEternal Consciousness became a peak<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf an unsouled almighty Inconscient <\/font><\/p>\n

\nAnd, breathed no more as spirit’s native air.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBliss was an incident of a mortal hour,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger in the insentient universe. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe scribe’s handwriting is generally easier to read than
\nSri Aurobindo’s, But the scribe’s way of forming some letters
\ncould be ambiguous. Whereas "freak" is perfectly clear in Sri
\nAurobindo’s manuscript, the scribe’s "fr" here resembles some
\nof his "p"s. This explains the typist’s misreading of "freak" as
\n"peak". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe typist’s initiative in supplying punctuation after "air"
\nwas not without justification. But a comma was needed, not a
\nfull stop. A full stop could have been correct only if there had
\nnot been a comma after "And". Then, "breathed no more as
\nspirit’s native air" could have gone with what preceded and
\nreferred to Consciousness. Even so, the wording would have
\nbeen awkward without "was" before "breathed". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 102<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nBut the scribe marked a comma prominently after "And"
\nIt is unlikely that he would have done this if Sri Aurobindo
\nhad not dictated it; irregularities of punctuation in dictated
\nlines are almost always omissions. This means that "breathed
\nno more as spirit’s native air" was intended to go with the
\nnext line and referred, not to Consciousness, but to Bliss. This
\nconnection was lost in the typed version. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nSri Aurobindo dictated a number of alterations in the typed
\ncopy. He changed "peak" to "home", and revised the third
\ntine as if the full stop typed after "air" had been correct.* The
\nchanges resulted in the following: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe eternal Consciousness became the home
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nOf an unsouled almighty Inconscient; <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIt lived no more as spirit’s native air.
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nA stranger in the insentient universe,
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nBliss was the incident of a mortal hour. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe lines were printed in this form when an extract from Book
\nSix, Canto Two, appeared in the 1948 issue of Sri Aurobindo
\nMandir Annual.<\/i> Sri Aurobindo revised an offprint of this publication. He changed "an" to "some" in the second line and
\nrevised the third line <\/b> to <\/font><\/p>\n

\nOne breathed no more the spirit’s native air. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThus the passage reached the form in which it was printed in
\nthe first edition. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nHere again, we have a passage that Sri Aurobindo revised
\nin two phases, with a break between them in which the results
\nof the first phase were inaccurately transmitted. Due to this
\nbreak in continuity, the rule that later versions supersede earlier ones loses some of its force. We have seen other instances <\/font><\/p>\n

\n <\/p>\n

\n* It could be doubted whether Sri Aurobindo was aware of all the punctuation in
\nthe typed copy, since the typescript was read to him and revised at his dictation.
\nBut even if the scribe did not read the punctuation aloud, he would have paused at
\nthe full stop, giving the impression that it was the end of the sentence. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 103<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nwhere Sri Aurobindo revised accidentally corrupted versions
\nof his lines, without eliminating what was introduced by the
\ncorruptions or fully compensating for what was lost. In such
\ncases, the last version that preceded the incorrect transmission may offer the most authentic text, free from extraneous
\ninfluences mixed with Sri Aurobindo’s inspiration. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA perfect consistency is observable in Sri Aurobindo’s first
\nphase of work on this passage. In a manner that is typical of
\nthe revision of Savitri,<\/i> he expanded two lines into five by bringing 
\nout latent aspects of what was seen and expressed in its essence in the original version. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nStarting from a bare statement of the idea of consciousness as "a freak of Inconscience" and bliss as "an occurrence
\nin the Insentient", Sri Aurobindo heightened the terms of the
\nparadox in an ampler formulation. He kept his original words
\nor close equivalents, such as "incident", which replaced "occurrence". Words and phrases were added to bring home the
\nenormity of the seemingly all-powerful negations and, on the
\nother hand, to recall what consciousness and bliss are in their
\nown right. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe passage reached this point by an organic development
\nfrom the original conception. Abrupt departures from that
\nconception were initiated in the next phase, not by Sri Aurobindo himself, but by the typist. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe word "freak", which expressed as strongly as possible the paradoxical position of the divine consciousness in a
\nworld of unconsciousness, disappeared when it was misread
\nas "peak". Alteration of "peak" to "home" resulted in the
\nmilder paradox of the eternal Consciousness housing the
\nInconscient within itself. However true this may be, it introduced a shift of standpoint in relation to the lines above and
\nbelow, which portray Being as a transient phenomenon in a
\nhuge Nought and refer to Bliss, the third term of the trinity, as
\nonly a "stranger in the insentient universe". <\/font><\/p>\n

\nThe full stop typed after "air" disconnected this line from
\nwhat follows and associated it with what precedes. Thus consciousness became the spirit’s "native air". Yet the original <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 104<\/font><\/p>\n

\n

\nversion, where it was bliss that was the air breathed by the
\nunfallen spirit, was more consistent with other lines in Savitri,
\n<\/i>such as: <\/font><\/p>\n

\nA secret air of pure felicity
\n<\/font><\/p>\n

\nDeep like a sapphire heaven our spirits breathe….55<\/font> <\/font><\/p>\n

\nIn this instance, once more, imperfect transcription of Sri
\nAurobindo’s lines appears to have contributed significantly to
\nthe principal differences between what he originally wrote and
\nrevised and what was eventually printed. This being the case,
\nhis last version unaffected by any inaccuracies that could have
\ndisturbed the continuity of his revision has been restored in
\nthe new edition. The version printed in previous editions is
\nlisted as an alternative. <\/font><\/p>\n

\nPage – 105<\/font><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Readings in the New Edition   Most differences between the new edition of Savitri and previous editions are easily explained by describing how the work…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[76],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-08-on-the-new-edition-of-savitri-furthur-explanationspart-two","wpcat-76-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worksofthemotherandsriaurobindo.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}