Web Exclusive: Translator Extraordinary

Manmatha Nath Dutt – II

Bibek Debroy is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council
Page 1 of 1

A Society, a magazine and a publishing house

 “The Statesman” newspaper was started in 1875 and soon after, there was a debate that attracted the attention of many educated people in Calcutta.  This was triggered by the Reverend William Hastie (1842-1903), who led quite a colourful life, with libel charges and imprisonment.  But that was later.  At the time that we are talking about, he was the Principal of General Assembly’s Institution, which would become Scottish Church College later.  The controversy in the editorial pages of “The Statesman”, lasted from 23rd September 1882 to 14th November 1882.  The trigger was a shraddha (funeral) ceremony held at the Shobhabazar Rajbari (palace).  On the occasion of the shraddha ceremony, the family idol, Gopinathji, was placed on a silver throne.  On 20th September 1882, “The Statesman” published a report on the funeral ceremony, at which, several notable people were present.  This account infuriated William Hastie and he dashed off three letters to the newspaper, published on 23rd, 26th and 29th September 1882.  The Reverend Hastie was livid at this example of idolatry and implicitly suggested that the only hope for Hindus was to become Christians.  The third letter eventually provoked Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, who responded with a letter to the editorial pages on 6th October 1882.  However, since Bankim Chandra Chatterjee signed this letter as “Ramchandra”, it wasn’t initially known that this was Bankim Chandra Chatterjee writing.  Hastie responded and more letters followed.  Bankim Chandra Chatterjee never quite got into a futile debate with Hastie.

In that exchange of letters, what is relevant for us is Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s first letter, signed “Ramchandra” and titled “The Modern St. Paul”.  It should be quoted in its entirety.  “Sir, Will you allow me to suggest to Mr. Hastie, who is so ambitious of earning distinction as a sort of Indian St. Paul, that it is fit that he should render himself better acquainted with the doctrines of the Hindoo religion before he seeks to demolish them?  As matters stand with him, his arguments are simply contemptible; and I think the columns of the Statesman might have been more usefully occupied by advertisements about Doorga Puja holiday goods than by trash which renders the champion of Christianity contemptible in the eyes of idolaters.  This may be harsh language, but the writer who mistakes Vedantism for Hinduism and goes to Mr. Monier Williams for an exposition of that doctrine, hardly deserves better treatment.  Mr. Hastie’s attempt to storm the ‘inner citadel’ of the Hindoo religion forcibly reminds us of another equally heroic achievement – that of the redoubted knight of La Mancha before the windmill.  Let Mr. Hastie take my advice, and obtain some knowledge of Sanskrit scriptures in the ORIGINAL.  Let him study then critically all the systems of Hindoo philosophy – the Bhagabatgita, the Bhakti-Sutra of Sandilya, and such other works.  Let him not study them under European Scholars, for they cannot teach what they cannot understand; the blind cannot lead the blind.  Let him study them with a Hindoo, with one who believes in them.  And then, if he should still entertain his present inclination to enter on an apostolic career, let him hold forth at his pleasure, and if we do not promise to be convinced by him, we promise not to laugh at him.  At present, arguments would be thrown away on him.  There can be no controversy on a subject when one of them controversialists is in utter ignorance of the subject matter of the controversy; and if under such circumstances the ‘Olympians only yawn’ and do not assert, Mr. Hastie has only to thank his own precipitate ignorance.”

This was in 1882.  Given Manmath Nath Dutt’s likely date of birth, he would have been just about twenty then and it is also fairly obvious which side of the debate he would have been in.  The likes of Reverend Hastie weren’t likely to learn Sanskrit and read the texts in the original.  Hence, Manmatha Nath Dutt set out to do this in English.  Here is a quote from the Introduction to Gleanings-I, published in 1893, eleven years after the Hastie versus Bankim Chandra exchange occurred.  “The Hindus and their Religion are the most misunderstood thing in the modern world.  The civilized people of the Western World labour under the notion that the Hindus are a people a little better than the aborigines of Africa and their Religion is not better than the grossest form of idolatry…..We do not exaggerate; so long as we cannot remove the notion that is predominant all over the Western World, we know we shall find none to agree with us in saying what we have just now said.  This work is an attempt in that direction.  This is an attempt to popularize the Hindu Literature, Philosophy and religion among the Western nations.  We are treading the footsteps of the great Rishis.  We are following the examples and adopting the means of those great men, who made India what it is.  We shall give their tales, their annals, legends and histories, their sweet verses and sweeter poems in popular and easy English, suiting modern tastes and Western methods.  Hindu Literature, History, Philosophy and Religion are so extensive that it is not expected to be mastered in a day or explained in a book.  This little work is the first step to give an idea of them, - it will be followed by a series of works, in each and every one of which attempts will be made to popularize Hindu Literature, History, Philosophy and Religion.”

At some point, Manmatha Nath Dutt must have received some kind of reprint permission from Heeralal Dhole. Strangely, as is the case with Manmatha Nath Dutt, not much is known about Heeralal Dhole either.  Heeralal Dhole brought out the Dhole Vedanta Series. Lala Sreeram translated Vicharsagar and this was published by Heeralal Dhole in 1885.  This did not carry the Dhole Vedanta Series imprint. The Vichar Mala of Anatha Das, also translated by Lala Sreeram, was published in Dhole’s Vedanta Series.  At the end of this book, there is a note, dated 1st January 1886, by Heeralal Dhole.  The subject of the note is Dhole’s Vedanta Series.  This tells us a bit about the Dholes, Nandalal and Heeralal.  This series published the Vedantasara of Paramhansa Sadananda Jogindra.  Heeralal Dhole’s note quoted reviews of this volume.  “The English rendering of it is from the erudite and scholarly pen of our friend Dr. Nandalal Dhole, Late Surgeon to the Courts of Khetree and Marwar.”  From a different review of the same volume, “It is very ably prefaced by the Editor, Mr. Heeralal Dhole whose learned and patriotic spirit longs to see the revival of the once glorious spiritual or religious advancement of our Aryan nation. The Memoir and the English Translation of the Original Sanscrit Text by Dr. Nandalal Dhole, late Surgeon to the Courts of Khetree and Marwar, with copious annotations do justice to his ripe erudition.” 

The note also announced the forthcoming translation of Vidyaranaswami’s Panchadasi.  The model followed was identical to the model followed in the Manmatha Nath Dutt translations.  Monthly instalments, culminating in an eventual book. “This work is being issued in monthly parts. Annual subscription for the English Edition Rs. 6 in India; Rs. 7 in Ceylon, Straits Settlements, China Japan, ann (sic) Australia; 14 shillings in Africa, Europe, and U. S. America. Single copy Re. 1. Dr. Nundalal Dhole is in charge of the English Translation.”  Panchadasi was published in Dhole’s Vedanta series, but there was a difference.  By the time it was published in two volumes in 1886, Nandalal Dhole was dead.  The second edition, published in 1899, still bore the Dhole Vedanta series imprint.  However, the publisher was Heeralal Dhole Musjid Bari Street and Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature, 65/2 Beadon Street.  The printer became H. C. Das of Elysium Press, 65/2 Beadon Street.  The preface to the first edition was by Nandalal Dhole.  In the second edition, there was a footnote by Heeralal Dhole and this said, “And so it did happen that with this short Biographical Sketch of the author (meaning Vidyaranya Swami), the English translator of the Panchadasi paid his tribute of Nature. He died in his 47th year on the 14th of March, 1887 at 5-30 a. m., deeply regretted by all who knew him.”  After Nandalal Dhole died, Vedanta Press, at least the one that published Dhole’s Vedanta Series, probably wound up.  In any event, it does not seem to have ever published anything else.  How did Heeralal Dhole and Manmatha Nath Dutt come into contact with each other?  Heeralal Dhole’s address in Masjid Bari Street and Manmatha Nath Dutt’s address were not that far from each other and Vedanta Press at 56 Beadon Street was even closer to 65/2 Beadon Street.  What happened to Heeralal Dhole later?  We don’t know.  He too seems to have vanished.  In the 1904 book on Hindu Metaphysics, Manmatha Nath Dutt inserted a chapter on “Maya”, based on something Nandalal Dhole had written.  There was a footnote to this chapter.  “We glean this from a valuable contribution by Dr Nandalal Dhole, the eminent translator of the Panchadasi in the columns of The Philosophic Inquirer, Vol. VII, p. 73, and insert it here with the kind permission of his son, our esteemed friend and brother Babu Heeralal Dhole.”

But Heeralal Dhole and Manmatha Nath Dutt’s paths were different.  Vedantasara was published by Heeralal Dhole in 1883.  Here is a quote from Heeralal Dhole’s Preface.  “The twice-born has retired from the conspicuous position of his ancestors behind the desk of a government office, or a merchant’s counter, leaving the key to rust in the lock of Brahmanic lore, to be turned by the mighty hand of a Blavatsky and the patriotic and philanthropic erudition of an Olcott, till whipped into a sense of duty these “bad Aryans” have returned in fealty and allegiance to the mother-country, and are now preparing in one grand effort to put the shoulder to the wheel….With successive generations the gulf grew wider, the thirst for service grew universal, and the quiet and engrossing study of the Aryan Rishis, their sacred books and writings, came to a stand-still….The Ramayana and the Mahavarata were fabulous tales spun out into coarse yarns, without any redeeming feature; even the Vedas and Puranas were no better….At such a juncture the appearance of the two strangers amongst us – the indefatigable President-Founder and the illustrious and excellent Madame Blavatsky was an invaluable blessing.”  These were the views of the Theosophical Society and certainly not something Manmatha Nath Dutt would subscribe to.  Therefore, when Manmatha Nath Dutt reprinted Vedantasara in 1909, he had his own Preface.  “Vedanta is not theology, because it denies the conception of an anthropomorphistic deity.  It is not ethics alone, since in the later development of soul-existence, it denies the paradox of good and evil.  It is not a science of things, since it proves things to be non-existent and illusory.  It is a science whose exact English synonym is hard to find out, the Science of Seeing being the best translation.”

We have a Society, a magazine and a press.  The Manu Samhita translation describes Manmatha Nath Dutt as the Founder of the Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature. This Society probably didn’t have any other office-bearers.  The objectives of this Society were the following and were stated in the Ayurveda monograph. “1. To undertake the publication of rare Sanskrit texts not published before. 2. To undertake the publication of cheap editions of texts already published. 3. To publish popular editions of works relating to the antiquity of Indian literature. 4. To publish such works of oriental scholars as have gone out of print. 5. To undertake translations of standard Sanskrit works into various living languages.” The address was 65/2 Beadon Street and the insert also stated, “Any donation or pecuniary help for the furtherance of the objects of the Society, will be thankfully received and acknowled the Secretary (sic).”  That appeal about donations or pecuniary help wasn’t repeated.  Either it wasn’t needed, or it didn’t help.

The Society had five different objectives and I wish to stress this point.  Manmatha Nath Dutt is invariably described as a translator, from Sanskrit to English.  Indeed, he was that.  However, he was also an author under the head, “To publish popular editions of works relating to the antiquity of Indian literature”.  He seems to have received little acknowledgement for this.  In fact, the negative references to his translations are almost exclusively due to what was said about his translation of the Mahabharata.  Before Manmatha Nath Dutt, Kisari Mohan Ganguli published his translation of the Mahabharata. The Ganguli translation was funded and published by Pratap Chandra Roy.  Thanks to Pratap Chandra Roy and Pratap Chandra Roy’s wife, we know something about Ganguli.  P. Lal compiled an annotated Mahabharata bibliography in 1967 and this says quite a bit about Ganguli.  P. Lal was rather dismissive about Dutt.  This negative reference to the Dutt translation in this annotation may also have something to do with Dutt receiving less attention than he deserves.   In similar vein, here is Alf Hiltebeitel on issues of translation. “The first, which I will focus on shortly, is the 1884-1896 translation by Kisari Mohan Ganguli, who labored anonymously, leaving the credit for the work to its patron, fund-raiser, publisher, and spokesman Pratap Chandra Roy. The second, by Manmatha Nath Dutt (1895-1905), did little more than shamelessly crib from the Ganguli-Roy translation. It changed nothing substantial, and, quite gratuitously, did no more than try to improve the English. Ganguli, Roy, and Dutt were all Bengalis, and we may place their work in the setting of the so-called Bengal Renaissance, which occurred while the capital of the British empire was still in Calcutta, that is, in Bengal.”

The charge of copying is a trifle unfair.  As has just been mentioned, translations were only part of what Manmatha Nath Dutt did.  There were indeed problems with the translations.  First, the production quality was not the best and there were typos.  Second, Manmatha Nath Dutt wasn’t always original, deliberately so.  His object was dissemination.  The Ramayana translation was an exception, where much more of Manmatha Nath Dutt comes out.  In subsequent translations, Introductions became rare and terse and he often drew on the work of others.  For instance, though the language did change, the Dutt translation does draw a fair bit from the Ganguli translation.  In the 1896 Vishnu Purana translation, much more than his Mahabharata translation drew on Ganguli, his Vishnu Purana translation drew on Horace Hayman Wilson’s (1786-1860) translation of the Vishnu Purana and this was explicitly acknowledged in the sub-title itself.  It was also explicitly acknowledged in the preface.  “In this translation of Vishnupuram I have principally drawn upon Professor H. H. Wilson’s splendid work, and have tried, as best as lies in my power, to interpret the ancient thought entombed in this great work.  My work is not so much intended for scholars as for the general readers who have not the time and leisure to read the original.  Professor Wilson’s book is very costly and cannot be always procured by the readers; and in the face of this difficulty I believe my edition will not be unwelcome to the general public.”  Irrespective of whether copyright legislation existed or not, this was never plagiarisation in the sense we use the word now.  However, this tendency to disseminate the work of others, probably meant that Manmatha Nath Dutt never quite got the credit he deserved, at least for the translations.

This was a period when serious translations were being done in Bengal. From 1895, Manmatha Nath Dutt started to describe himself as M.R.A.S.  The Asiatic Society was established by William Jones in 1784 and M.R.A.S. stands for Member of the Royal Asiatic Society.  Specifically, in the meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society held on 13th November 1894, it was announced that Manmatha Nath Dutt had been elected a member.  At the 28th March 1895 meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, we are told, “On an application from Babu Manmatha Natha Datta, a copy of his translation of the Ramayana was purchased, and the publications of the Wealth of India series, were subscribed for.”  Name changes shouldn’t cause confusion.  In 1784, the Society was established as “Asiatick Society”.  In 1825, it became “The Asiatic Society”.  In 1832, it became “The Asiatic Society of Bengal”.  In 1936, it became “The Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal”.  Finally, in 1951, it became “The Asiatic Society”.  Let’s simply call it Asiatic Society. In 1849, Asiatic Society started publishing translations under the “Bibilotheca Indica” series.  There were other books too, but translations were also part of the mandate.  If one sticks to the kind of texts Manmatha Nath Dutt was interested in, under the “Bibliotheca Indica” series, Asiatic Society published Sanskrit editions/translations of Agni Purana (1873-79, by Rajendralal Mitra), Brihad Dharma Purana (1888, by Haraprasad Shastri), Brihad Naradiya Purana (1891, by Hrishikesha Shastri), Parasara Samhita (1887, Krishnakamal Bhattacharya), Kamandakiya Nitisara (1884, Ramnarayana Vidyaratna and Rajendralal Mitra), Kurma Purana (1890, Nilmani Mukhopadhyaya), Markandeya Purana (1904, F.E. Pargiter), Parasara Smriti (1890, Chandrakanta Tarkalankara), Sama Veda Samhita (1874-79, Satyavrata Samasrami), Varaha Purana (1893, Hrishikesha Shastri) and Vayu Purana (1880-81, Rajendralal Mitra).  This was the same period.  Most of these were edited Sanskrit texts, not English translations.  But the Asiatic Society was interested in English language translations and Krishnakamal Bhattacharya and Pargiter were indeed translations.  It would have been natural for the Dutt translations to be published under the Asiatic Society’s “Bibliotheca Indica” series. Why weren’t they?  Perhaps Manmatha Nath Dutt wasn’t interested.  Since he became a Member of the Asiatic Society, this seems unlikely.  It is much more likely that he wasn’t taken seriously as a scholar.  As the Rajendralal Mitra example illustrates, this couldn’t have had much to do with formal training.  Rajendralal Mitra (1823/24-1891), the first Indian President of the Asiatic Society, possessed no formal training in Sanskrit.

To get back to Manamatha Nath Dutt’s Society, this Society published several authors, such as Horace Hayman Wilson on the Puranas, Sita Nath Datta (also known as Sitanath Tattvabhushan) on Adi Shankaracharya, translations of Kalidasa and Rammohun Roy on the Vedas. After his death, Manmatha Nath Dutt suffered from the lack of copyright legislation at the time.  While he was alive, he also benefited from the lack of copyright legislation. Why give it the name Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature?  This is speculation, but I think it may be because of Dadabhai Naoroji’s statement, “The Benefits of British Rule”.  Originally, this was written in 1871.  But Dadabhai Naoroji’s collection of speeches, essays, addresses and writings was published in 1887, precisely when Manmath Nath Dutt was going about naming his Society.  One needn’t mention Dadabhai Naoroji’s complete documented balance sheet, the pluses and the minuses, the costs and benefits of British rule.  Under the head in the cause of civilization, he said, “Resuscitation of India's own noble literature, modified and refined by the enlightenment of the West.”  This is probably where Manmath Nath Dutt got the name of his Society.  Dadabhai Naoroji’s 1887 book also probably explains where Manmath Nath Dutt got the name of his magazine.  The essays had a section titled “The Poverty of India”.  However, so far as India’s literature is concerned, India was hardly poor.  Therefore, the magazine was called “The Wealth of India”. This was “a monthly magazine solely devoted to the English translation of the best Sanskrit works” and was published between 1892 and 1908.  Manmatha Nath Dutt was the editor and publisher and G. C. Chackravarti was the printer.  The Dutt translations were originally, before being brought out as books, serialized in “Wealth of India”.  Effectively, the monthly issues were bound and became books.  But it is not as if everything published by the Society and Elysium Press was first published in “The Wealth of India”. 

To the best of my knowledge, no copies of “The Wealth of India” survive anywhere in India.  A copy on microfilm existed with the New York Public Library.  Through the Indian Consulate in New York, I managed to procure a copy.  Unfortunately, it is damaged and is not a complete set from 1892 from 1912.  From 1892, we only have the first page, nothing more.  This first issue is from July 1892 and announced “The Wealth of India” as “A Monthly Magazine Solely Devoted to the Translation of Best Sanskrit Works”.  It was edited and published by Manmatha Nath Dutt, who was described as the editor of the English Ramayana.  The annual subscription to the magazine was Rs 6.  Since this was the first issue of the magazine, the Ramayana translation must have been published independent of the magazine.  Indeed, among Manmatha Nath Dutt’s several books, only translations were routed through “The Wealth of India” and not every translation was routed through “The Wealth of India”.  From 1894, we have an undamaged set of the magazine, with breaks here and there, and that takes us through Vishnu Purana, Kamandakiya Nitisara, Markandeya Purana, Hari Vamsha, Mahanirvana Tantra and Agni Purana.

Both magazine and society did not survive after Dutt.  The initial books were printed by Girish Chandra Chackravarti, who was also the publisher, under the name of Deva Press, with an address of 65/2 Beadon Street.  The subsequent ones were printed by H.C. Dass, but the publisher sometimes became Elysium Press.  (Sometimes, it continued to be the Society.)  However, the address of Elysium Press continued to be the same as Deva Press, 65/2 Beadon Street.  Was Deva Press bought over by Elysium Press?  Was it renamed?  Note that then, as is often the case now, the line between printer and publisher is often a blurred one.  The way I understand it, at that time, there was no legal requirement for a publisher to be registered in any way.  But for societies, there was the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and for printing presses and books, there was the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867.  The Societies Registration Act of 1860 did not make the registration of societies mandatory.  I don’t think Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature was ever registered.  There was no legal need.  Registration would have required seven members.  For the Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature, there was a single person.  Manmatha Nath Dutt was the Founder and everything else.  It was different for the Press and Registration of Books Act of 1867.  According to this, every printing press had to make a declaration to the government.  Was Deva Press bought over by Elysium Press?  Was it renamed?  That doesn’t follow.  It continued to publish books independently and till much later. In the Calcutta of that day and age, printing/publishing had become a bit of a cottage industry and had exploded.  Declarations of returns from the mid-1890s show that Manmatha Nath Dutt was the owner of Elysium Press.  But technically, it was registered as a printing press, not as a publisher.  However, every book did require the name of the publisher to be stated.  Often, that was the Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature. At some point, Elysium Press moved to 40 Nayan Chand Dutt Street and later, to 3 Furriapukur Street.  The Society’s address and Manmath Nath Dutt’s address also moved around, to those specific addresses.  In that environment, Dutt was a bit of an entrepreneur too, establishing societies, magazines, publishing houses.  However, Elysium Press did publish the odd book that was neither authored, nor edited, by Manmatha Nath Dutt.

A society, a magazine and a publishing house, flourishing or not, require financial resources.  There were certainly monthly subscriptions to “The Wealth of India”.  There were donations to the Society.  However, since the appeal for donations to the Society were rarely repeated in the books, one deduces these donations weren’t essential.  As a zamindar, like Bhupati, Manmatha Nath Dutt would have had his own resources to dig into.  He must certainly have been paid by Keshub Academy too.  However, the primary resources probably came from elsewhere.

The 1893 Gleanings-I said, “This Little Book is Respectfully Dedicated as a Token of Gratitude by the Editor to His Highness Sir Veeracarala Vurma, Knight Commander of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Maharaja of Cochin.”  This was Kerala Varma-V, who ruled from 1888 to 1895.  Kerala Varma-V visited Calcutta in 1893.  The 1899 Gleanings-III was “affectionately dedicated as a token of friendship” to Babu Dharani Kant Lahiri Choudhuri, “the most enlightened and seminar of Kalipur in the District of Maimansing”. Mymensingh is now in Bangladesh.  The name is usually spelt as Dharanikant Lahiri Chaudhuri today.  The Lahiri Chaudhuris were zamindars in Mymensingh, but they were divided into various sub-families.  One of these was based in Kalipur.  There is no need to ask if Dharanikant Lahiri Chaudhuri ever visited Calcutta.  He travelled throughout the country and published a fairly thick travelogue in Bengali.  It stands to reason he must have visited Calcutta.  At that time, Calcutta was also the capital of British India.  Therefore, there was more than one reason to visit Calcutta. The 1897 Harivamsha translation was dedicated to Sir Pratap Singh (1848-1925), Maharaja of Kashmir (spelt Cashmere in the dedication) “as a token of appreciation of his Highness’ sympathy for such works, his vast scholarship and liberality by his most obedient and humble servant and admirer”.  There are records of Pratap Singh having paid a visit to Calcutta in 1885-86.  The 1901 book on the Buddha was dedicated to Sir Sayajirao Gaekwad III (1863-1939), the Maharaja of Baroda State “as a token of highest esteem and admiration for his highness' many virtues, accomplishments and scholarly attainments”.  Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III visited Calcutta in 1883. The 1904 Hindu Metaphysics was dedicated to Maharaja Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV (1884-1940), Maharaja of Mysore from 1894 to 1940 “as a token of sincere regards and high esteem for His Highness’ culture and sympathy”.  Krishnaraja Wadiyar IV visited Calcutta in 1894.  My intention is not to categorically state that these were the only occasions when these Maharajas visited Calcutta.  There must have been other occasions too.  I simply wanted to stress that Manmatha Nath Dutt did not have to travel throughout the country to meet these Maharajas.  He had every opportunity of meeting them in Calcutta.


1. All the six Hastie letters were subsequently published as Hindu Idolatry and English Enlightenment: Six Letters Addressed to Educated Hindus Containing a Practical Discussion of Hinduism, Thacker, Spink and Company, Calcutta, 1883.
2. In the form of a book, these letters, and some others, were published much later, in 1940. Letters on Hinduism, Bankim Chandra Chatterji, M.M. Bose, Calcutta, 1940, edited by Brajendra Nath Banerji and Sajani Kanta Das.
3. The Metaphysics of the Upanishads. Vicharsagar, translated with copious notes by Lala Sreeram, Heeralal Dhole, 127 Musjidbaree Street, 1885, printed by Nilambara Vidyaratna, Vedanta Press, Musjidbaree Street.
4. The Vichar Mala, translated by Lala Sreeram, Dhole’s Vedanta Series, Heeralal Dhole, 127 Musjid Baree Street, 1886, printed by Nilambara Vidyaratna, Vedanta Press, 56 Beadon Street.
5. The typos and inferior production quality characterized this set of publications also. For example, January is typed Jaunary and the address is given as 127 Musjidbari Street.
6. A Handbook of Hindu Pantheism. The Panchadasi of Sreemut Vidyaranya Swami. Translated with Copious Annotations by Nandalal Dhole, L.M.S., Heeralal Dhole, Society for Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, 1899. I have not been able to get copies of the first edition. L.M.S. stands for Licentiate in Medicine and Surgery and was a medical degree in vogue in British India. It existed concurrently with the MB (Bachelor of Medicine) degree and after Independence, the two were merged to form a unified MBBS degree. By profession, Nandalal Dhole was a physician.
7. The text of the Ayurveda monograph also has several typos.
8. “This is the second complete translation, in three volumes, of the Mahabharata, by the Rector of Keshub Academy. It is the only one that gives a verse-by-verse rendering. Dutt follows the Kisari Mohan Ganguli version closely in many places, but is more prudish: Ganguli Latinises, Dutt omits. In Book I (Adi Parva), LXIII, “slokas 50 to 52 not translated for obvious reasons,” he explains; in the same book, CIV, slokas 14 to 20 are also "not translated for obvious reasons.”” Quote from An Annotated Mahabharata Bibliography, P. Lal, Writers Workshop, 1967.
9. “Some Thoughts on Translating Translation from Korea to India,” Alf Hiltebeitel,
10. The Vishnu Puran: a system of Hindu mythology and tradition, H. H. Wilson, Trubner and Company, London, 1864.
12. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, January to December 1896, Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1897.
13. gives a complete list.
14. Puranas, or an account of their contents and nature, H. H. Wilson, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, Calcutta, 1897; Sankaracharya, His Life and Teachings: A Translation of Atma-Bodha, Sita Nath Datta, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, Calcutta, 1897; Dramas, or A Complete Account of the Dramatic Literature of the Hindus, H. H. Wilson, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, Calcutta, 1900; Works of Kalidasa - 1. Shakuntala [in the Translation of Sir W. Jones]. 2. Vikrama-Urvashi [translated by H.H. Wilson]. 3. Kumara-Sambhavam. 4. Megha-Duta [translated by H.H. Wilson]. 5. Ritu-Samhara. 6. Raghu-Vamsha, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, Calcutta, 1901; Translations of Several Principal Books, Passages and Texts of the Veds, and Some Controversial Works on Brahmunical Theology: With an Introductory Memoir, Raja Rammohun Roy, Society for the Resuscitation of Indian Literature and Elysium Press, 1903.
15 Essays, Speeches, Addresses and Writings, Dadabhai Naoroji, Caxton Printing Works, Bombay, 1887.
16. The copy of the microfilm is now kept at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library (NMML), Delhi. Converted into PDF, there is a copy with NMML and another copy with National Library, Kolkata.
17. Kaviratna, A. The Charaka samhita, 4 Vol. ed. Calcutta: Girish Chandra Chakravarti Deva Press, 1902-25 and
Chaudhuri, Jagatmohini, Englande Sat Mash (in Bengali), Calcutta: Deva Press, 1902. 18. For example, the annual returns of printing presses, in, Report on the Administration of Bengal, 1898.
19. Selected Men of Hindustan, S. L. Tandan, H. C. Dass, Elysium Press, 1902.
20. Bharat bhraman (in Bengali), Dharanikant Lahiri Chaudhuri, 1910. This seems to have been privately published.

Related Article

Manmatha Nath Dutt-I