________________
298
Annals BORI, LXV (1984)
when he renders the word sprhaniya- (88.10 ) as atulaniya, or janmanā ( 89. 2) as due to birth in a noble family' (when what is meant is, as shown by the context, vayasā).
As examples of wrong construeing may be cited the following: (1) The translation of 89.1 presupposes the text to be surasiddharşilokāt prabhramţitaḥ ataḥ alpapunyaḥ. But actually prabhramsitah and alpapunyah are to be separated and the latter is to be taken together with prapatāmi. (2) The last two quarters of 88. 7 belong together and form one sentence. But the translator makes two different sentences of them, as if the author of the stanza wanted to compare Yayāti in point of lustre and appearance also with the sun, as he compares him with Indra and Agai in the first two quarters of the stanza. (3) ID 175. 2 the sentence really runs as idam akhyānan sarveșu lokeșu purānan paricakşate. The translation, however, runs as “this story, banded down by tradition since very old times, is famous in the three worlds". (4) In the next stanza ( 175. 3) the construction is pārthivah gādhiti visrutah loke. But the translation runs as “The king was named Gādhi. He was famous in the world".
These are trifling little things, no doubt. But could they not have been easily avoided ?
More regrettable is the translator's slip of the pen when while translating the very first line of the epic he says that Lomaharşana arrived at the Naimișa forest. In fact it is Ugraśravas, the son of Lomaharşapa, who arrived there. The translation of this line suffers from other defects too. The text of the original says that Ugraśravas who came to the Naimisa forest was well-versed in the Purăņas (paurānikah). But the translator, relying entirely on the fanciful explanation of the word given by Nilakantha, credits the visitor also with the knowledge of the secret doctrine of the Uparisads. The translator renders the text word sautiḥ as sūtaputra' and yet he retains the word sauti in his translation. It is well known that This first line occurs again in the Mahābhārata ( 4. 1). The translator has rendered the line there correctly. It is difficult to understand why the same line has been rendered differently at two places not far removed from each other.
The translator informs the reader in the preface that he has made full use of the commentary of Nilakaptha. He is convinced that Nilakaạtha has made a careful attempt to reveal the mind of the author of the Mahā. bhārata. The translator has therefore found it fit to follow him to a very great extent While no one will deny the advisability of consulting a commentator,
Madhu Vidya/657
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
