My first question to him was,—­whence was the money to come, supposing my competence for the task.  Pratapa then unfolded to me the details of his plan, the hopes he could legitimately cherish of assistance from different quarters.  He was full of enthusiasm.  He showed me Dr. Rost’s letter, which, he said, had suggested to him the undertaking.  I had known Babu Durga Charan for many years and I had the highest opinion of his scholarship and practical good sense.  When he warmly took Pratapa’s side for convincing me of the practicability of the scheme, I listened to him patiently.  The two were for completing all arrangements with me the very day.  To this I did not agree.  I took a week’s time to consider.  I consulted some of my literary friends, foremost among whom was the late lamented Dr. Sambhu C. Mookherjee.  The latter, I found, had been waited upon by Pratapa.  Dr. Mookherjee spoke to me of Pratapa as a man of indomitable energy and perseverance.  The result of my conference with Dr. Mookherjee was that I wrote to Pratapa asking him to see me again.  In this second interview estimates were drawn up, and everything was arranged as far as my portion of the work was concerned.  My friend left with me a specimen of translation which he had received from Professor Max Muller.  This I began to study, carefully comparing it sentence by sentence with the original.  About its literal character there could be no doubt, but it had no flow and, therefore, could not be perused with pleasure by the general reader.  The translation had been executed thirty years ago by a young German friend of the great Pundit.  I had to touch up every sentence.  This I did 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.