without at all impairing faithfulness to the original. My first 'copy' was
set up in type and a dozen sheets were struck off. These were submitted to
the judgment of a number of eminent writers, European and native. All of
them, I was glad to see, approved of the specimen, and then the task of
translating the Mahabharata into English seriously began.

Before, however, the first fasciculus could be issued, the question as to
whether the authorship of the translation should be publicly owned, arose.
Babu Pratapa Chandra Roy was against anonymity. I was for it. The reasons
I adduced were chiefly founded upon the impossibility of one person
translating the whole of the gigantic work. Notwithstanding my resolve to
discharge to the fullest extent the duty that I took up, I might not live
to carry it out. It would take many years before the end could be reached.
Other circumstances than death might arise in consequence of which my
connection with the work might cease. It could not be desirable to issue
successive fasciculus with the names of a succession of translators
appearing on the title pages. These and other considerations convinced my
friend that, after all, my view was correct. It was, accordingly, resolved
to withhold the name of the translator. As a compromise, however, between
the two views, it was resolved to issue the first fasciculus with two
prefaces, one over the signature of the publisher and the other headed--
'Translator's Preface.' This, it was supposed, would effectually guard
against misconceptions of every kind. No careful reader would then
confound the publisher with the author.

Although this plan was adopted, yet before a fourth of the task had been
accomplished, an influential Indian journal came down upon poor Pratapa
Chandra Roy and accused him openly of being a party to a great literary
imposture, viz., of posing before the world as the translator of Vyasa's
work when, in fact, he was only the publisher. The charge came upon my