But from the editors who examined the Savitri-manuscripts in detail we have rather an unfortunate statement about the third line of this passage. While proposing the replacement of “twixt” by “in”, this is what they say: “The last emendation of a handwritten line was necessitated by what the editors consider to be a slip made by the author while revising. All handwritten versions, except the last, of line 491 [p. 347] of Book Three, Canto 4, run as follows:
And in the pauses of the building brain.
When he copied this line in the ‘final version’, Sri Aurobindo wrote ‘twixt’ instead of ‘in’. This word, although somewhat archaic, is perfectly legitimate, and in fact of fairly frequent occurrence in Savitri. But here it does not make sense. The ‘pauses’ of the brain are what come between, or twixt, its ordinary activities. Sri Aurobindo’s intention surely was that it is in these pauses that, as the sequel says, ‘thoughts’ from hidden shores come in and touch the seeker. Perhaps he meant to alter ‘pauses’ when he substituted ‘twixt’ for ‘in’. At any rate,” the note further says, “the unrevised version of the line, as given above, seems to represent Sri Aurobindo’s intentions better than the revised one, and it has therefore been restored to the text.”
The editors seem to be too confident to say that “twixt” for “in” was a slip on the part of Sri Aurobindo himself. We do not know.
This is too presumptuous, that “Sri Aurobindo’s intention surely was that it is in these pauses”.
But this “twixt” must have been read out to Sri Aurobindo at least on three or four occasions later. The typescript, the proofs of the canto when it was published in the Advent in 1947, the fascicle that had come out again in 1947, and finally when the proofs of the 1950-edition of Part I of Savitri were read out to Sri Aurobindo. We cannot say that the same slip kept on happening at every stage in the sequence...
It is stated that even at the advanced stage of proofreading Sri Aurobindo “made extensive alterations and added new lines and passages.” This can be discerned from the differences “between the typescripts and the printed texts” as we have presently in the archival possession. But then we are also told that the “only major gap… is the proofs of the early printed versions of a substantial portion of the poem” and that “Sri Aurobindo’s proof-revision was light.” As “revision was neither extensive nor complex”, it may be said, “the consequences of not being able to see the proofs themselves are quite minimal”. Therefore, the editorial discernment is: Absence of the final proofs need not be considered of much consequence. But then all this becomes dubious and self-contradictory, when the claim is “we want an authentic edition of Savitri”.
Based on careful studies and researches, an attempt was made in the 1980s to bring out a Critical Edition of Savitri; but it proved abortive. By any reckoning, this was enormous work, of going through the ‘manuscripts’, or what are called the copy-texts, and noting down with respect to them the departures present in the 1972 edition. Instead of the
Critical Edition of Savitri what we have now, established on these textual examinations and collations, a Revised Edition brought out in 1993. This revised edition is also accompanied by a supplement that lists several editorial details. These provide the method of approach adopted, while accepting the readings as given in the newly edited work.
There are, however, certain issues
which need another look in order to take care of the objections that could be raised in some particular contexts. The main drawback is, the
non-availability of the researched data which are absolutely essential for an alert reader to arrive at his own conclusions when interpretational differences arise.
