Sir Ignatius Valentine Chirol (28 May 1852 – 22 October 1929) was a journalist, prolific author, historian and British diplomat. He was a passionate imperialist and believed that Imperial Germany and Muslim unrest were the biggest threats to the British Empire.He was the son of the Rev. Alexander Chirol and Harriet Chirol (née Ashburnham). His education was mostly in France and Germany.
He mis-informed the people residing in Calcutta that "Gitanjali had been re-written by Yeats".
Having learnt this Rabindranath brought the notice of Rothenstein and Sturge Moor. The proposal of Bridges reminded him the old story. He wrote to Bridges courtesy sake. But he opened his mind in a letter written to Rothensein to vent his anger on 4th April;
" I got a letter from Dr. Bridges with his own version of a Gitanjali poem. I cannot judge it. But since I have got my fame as an English writer I feel extreme reluctance in accepting alterations in my English poems by any of your writers. I must not give any reasonable ground for accusing me, -- which they do, -- of reaping advantage of other men's genius and skill. There are people who suspect that I owe in a large measure to Andrew's help for my literary success, which is so false that I can afford to laugh at it.But it is different about Yeats. I think Yeats was sparing in his suggestions -- moreover, I was with him during the revisions. But one is apt to delude himself, and it is very easy for me to gradually forget the share Yeats had in making my things possible. Though you have the first draft of my translations with you I have unfortunately allowed the revised typed pages to get lost in which Yeats pencilled his corrections.Of course, at that time I never could imagine that anything that I could write would find its place in your literature. But the situation is changed now. And if it be true that Yeats' touches have made it possible for Gitanjali to occupy the place it does that must be confessed. At least by my subsequent unadulterated writings my true level should be found out and the faintest speck of lie should be wiped out from the fame I enjoy now. It does not matter what the people think of me but it does matter all the world to me to be true to myself. This is the reason why I cannot accept any help from Bridges excepting where the grammar is wrong or wrong words have been used.My translations are frankly prose, -- my aim is to make them simple with just a suggestion of rhythm to give them a touch of the lyric, avoiding all archaisms and poetical conventions."
But the friends like Rothenstein and Yeats wanted to gratify the ego of the court-poet Bridge. Rabindranath added further in his letter ;
"Andrews does not admire the alterations made by Bridges but that does not affect me.In fact I am not so much anxious about mutilations as about added beauties which I cannot claim as mine".
Andrews wrote to Rothenstein on the next day, 5th April ;
" The poet has shown me letter to you and agree fully that Bridges must not be allowed to 'improve ' is work.There is the striking contrast between Yeats and Bridges. The former never put in his own work. I remember him flashing out the word "improve Tagore's English I should like to see the man who could do it." And on another occasion when I had altered the word 'coy'he got quite angry at my presumption.This was the spirit of Yeats all through. But Bridges is different. His version of "Thou art the sky" is no longer the Poet's English.....And I am sure . Yeats himself would be the last man in the world to wish it reopened. I can imagine him quite firing up if it were!"
He mis-informed the people residing in Calcutta that "Gitanjali had been re-written by Yeats".
Having learnt this Rabindranath brought the notice of Rothenstein and Sturge Moor. The proposal of Bridges reminded him the old story. He wrote to Bridges courtesy sake. But he opened his mind in a letter written to Rothensein to vent his anger on 4th April;
" I got a letter from Dr. Bridges with his own version of a Gitanjali poem. I cannot judge it. But since I have got my fame as an English writer I feel extreme reluctance in accepting alterations in my English poems by any of your writers. I must not give any reasonable ground for accusing me, -- which they do, -- of reaping advantage of other men's genius and skill. There are people who suspect that I owe in a large measure to Andrew's help for my literary success, which is so false that I can afford to laugh at it.But it is different about Yeats. I think Yeats was sparing in his suggestions -- moreover, I was with him during the revisions. But one is apt to delude himself, and it is very easy for me to gradually forget the share Yeats had in making my things possible. Though you have the first draft of my translations with you I have unfortunately allowed the revised typed pages to get lost in which Yeats pencilled his corrections.Of course, at that time I never could imagine that anything that I could write would find its place in your literature. But the situation is changed now. And if it be true that Yeats' touches have made it possible for Gitanjali to occupy the place it does that must be confessed. At least by my subsequent unadulterated writings my true level should be found out and the faintest speck of lie should be wiped out from the fame I enjoy now. It does not matter what the people think of me but it does matter all the world to me to be true to myself. This is the reason why I cannot accept any help from Bridges excepting where the grammar is wrong or wrong words have been used.My translations are frankly prose, -- my aim is to make them simple with just a suggestion of rhythm to give them a touch of the lyric, avoiding all archaisms and poetical conventions."
But the friends like Rothenstein and Yeats wanted to gratify the ego of the court-poet Bridge. Rabindranath added further in his letter ;
"Andrews does not admire the alterations made by Bridges but that does not affect me.In fact I am not so much anxious about mutilations as about added beauties which I cannot claim as mine".
Andrews wrote to Rothenstein on the next day, 5th April ;
" The poet has shown me letter to you and agree fully that Bridges must not be allowed to 'improve ' is work.There is the striking contrast between Yeats and Bridges. The former never put in his own work. I remember him flashing out the word "improve Tagore's English I should like to see the man who could do it." And on another occasion when I had altered the word 'coy'he got quite angry at my presumption.This was the spirit of Yeats all through. But Bridges is different. His version of "Thou art the sky" is no longer the Poet's English.....And I am sure . Yeats himself would be the last man in the world to wish it reopened. I can imagine him quite firing up if it were!"
