ccomplished, 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
friend as a surprise, especially as he had never made a secret of the
authorship in his correspondence with Oriental scholars in every part of
the world. He promptly wrote to the journal in question, explaining the
reasons there were for anonymity, and pointing to the two prefaces with
which the first fasciculus had been given to the world. The editor
readily admitted his mistake and made a satisfactory apology.

Now that the translation has been completed, there can no longer be any
reason for withholding the name of the translator. The entire translation
is practically the work of one hand. In portions of the Adi and the Sabha
Parvas, I was assisted by Babu Charu Charan Mookerjee. About four forms
of the Sabha Parva were done by Professor Krishna Kamal Bhattacharya, and
about half a fasciculus during my illness, was done by another hand. I
should however state that before passing to the printer the copy received
from these gentlemen I carefully compared every sentence with the
original, making such alterations as were needed for securing a
uniformity of style with the rest of the work.

I should here observe that in rendering the Mahabharata into English I
have derived very little aid from the three Bengali versions that are
supposed to have been executed with care. Every one of these is full of
inaccuracies and blunders of every description. The Santi in particular
which is by far the most difficult of the eighteen Parvas, has been made
a mess of by the Pundits that attacked it. Hundreds of ridiculous
blunders can be pointed out in both the Rajadharma and the Mokshadharma
sections. Some of these I have pointed out in footnotes.

I cannot lay claim to infallibility. There are verses in the Mahabharata
that are exceedingly difficult to construe. I have derived much aid from
the great commentator Nilakantha. I know that Nilakantha's authority is
not incapable of being challenged. But when it is remembered that the
interpretations given by Nilakantha came down to him from preceptors of
olden days, one should think twice before rejecting Nilakantha as a guide.

About the readings I have adopted, I should say that as regards the first
half