Appearance
Excerpt
Excerpt from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, by Omar Khayyam
And if more were needed to disprove Mons. Nicolas' Theory, there is
the Biographical Notice which he himself has drawn up in direct
contradiction to the Interpretation of the Poems given in his Notes.
(See pp. 13-14 of his Preface.) Indeed I hardly knew poor Omar was so
far gone till his Apologist informed me. For here we see that,
whatever were the Wine that Hafiz drank and sang, the veritable Juice
of the Grape it was which Omar used, not only when carousing with his
friends, but (says Mons. Nicolas) in order to excite himself to that
pitch of Devotion which others reached by cries and "hurlemens." And
yet, whenever Wine, Wine-bearer, &c., occur in the Text--which is
often enough--Mons. Nicolas carefully annotates "Dieu," "La Divinite,"
&c.: so carefully indeed that one is tempted to think that he was
indoctrinated by the Sufi with whom he read the Poems. (Note to Rub.
ii. p. 8.) A Persian would naturally wish to vindicate a
distinguished Countryman; and a Sufi to enroll him in his own sect,
which already comprises all the chief Poets of Persia.
What historical Authority has Mons. Nicolas to show that Omar gave
himself up "avec passion a l'etude de la philosophie des Soufis"?
(Preface, p. xiii.) The Doctrines of Pantheism, Materialism,
Necessity, &c., were not peculiar to the Sufi; nor to Lucretius before
them; nor to Epicurus before him; probably the very original
Irreligion of Thinking men from the first; and very likely to be the
spontaneous growth of a Philosopher living in an Age of social and
political barbarism, under shadow of one of the Two and Seventy
Religions supposed to divide the world. Von Hammer (according to
Sprenger's Oriental Catalogue) speaks of Omar as "a Free-thinker, and
a great opponent of Sufism;" perhaps because, while holding much of
their Doctrine, he would not pretend to any inconsistent severity of
morals. Sir W. Ouseley has written a note to something of the same
effect on the fly-leaf of the Bodleian MS. And in two Rubaiyat of
Mons. Nicolas' own Edition Suf and Sufi are both disparagingly named.
No doubt many of these Quatrains seem unaccountable unless mystically
interpreted; but many more as unaccountable unless literally. Were
the Wine spiritual, for instance, how wash the Body with it when dead?
Why make cups of the dead clay to be filled with--"La Divinite," by
some succeeding Mystic? Mons. Nicolas himself is puzzled by some
"bizarres" and "trop Orientales" allusions and images--"d'une
sensualite quelquefois revoltante" indeed--which "les convenances" do
not permit him to translate; but still which the reader cannot but
refer to "La Divinite."[8] No doubt also many of the Quatrains in the
Teheran, as in the Calcutta, Copies, are spurious; such Rubaiyat being
the common form of Epigram in Persia. But this, at best, tells as
much one way as another; nay, the Sufi, who may be considered the
Scholar and Man of Letters in Persia, would be far more likely than
the careless Epicure to interpolate what favours his own view of the
Poet. I observed that very few of the more mystical Quatrains are in
the Bodleian MS., which must be one of the oldest, as dated at Shiraz,
A.H. 865, A.D. 1460. And this, I think, especially distinguishes Omar
(I cannot help calling him by his--no, not Christian--familiar name)
from all other Persian Poets: That, whereas with them the Poet is lost
in his Song, the Man in Allegory and Abstraction; we seem to have the
Man--the Bon-homme--Omar himself, with all his Humours and Passions,
as frankly before us as if we were really at Table with him, after the
Wine had gone round.
Explanation
This excerpt is from Edward FitzGerald’s preface to his 1859 translation of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, a collection of quatrains (rubāʿiyāt) attributed to the 11th–12th century Persian mathematician, astronomer, and poet Omar Khayyám. The passage is a polemic against the French orientalist Nicolas’s mystical (Sufi) interpretation of Khayyám’s poetry, arguing instead for a literal, hedonistic, and skeptical reading of the poet’s work. Below is a detailed breakdown of the text, its context, themes, literary devices, and significance, with an emphasis on the excerpt itself.
1. Context of the Excerpt
FitzGerald’s Rubáiyát was not a direct translation but a highly creative reinterpretation of Khayyám’s quatrains, filtered through his own Victorian sensibilities and philosophical leanings. The excerpt comes from his preface to the first edition, where he critiques Monsieur Nicolas, a French scholar who had published a Sufi-mystical reading of Khayyám’s poetry in 1867. Sufism, the esoteric branch of Islam, often interprets poetic references to wine, taverns, and drunkenness as metaphors for divine love and spiritual ecstasy.
FitzGerald, however, rejects this allegorical approach, insisting that Khayyám was a free-thinking epicurean and materialist who celebrated earthly pleasures (especially wine) and questioned religious dogma. The passage is thus a defense of a literal reading against what FitzGerald sees as forced mysticism.
2. Summary & Key Arguments in the Excerpt
The excerpt can be divided into three main sections, each advancing FitzGerald’s critique of Nicolas:
A. Contradiction in Nicolas’ Interpretation (First Paragraph)
- FitzGerald mockingly points out that Nicolas’ own biographical note on Khayyám contradicts his mystical readings.
- Nicolas admits Khayyám drank actual wine (not just symbolic "divine wine") to induce devotion, yet in his annotations, he consistently replaces "wine" with "God" or "Divinity."
- FitzGerald sarcastically suggests Nicolas was influenced by a Sufi teacher ("indoctrinated by the Sufi"), implying bias.
- Key Implication: If Khayyám drank real wine, why assume his poetry is purely allegorical?
B. Historical & Philosophical Rebuttal (Second Paragraph)
- FitzGerald challenges Nicolas’ claim that Khayyám was a Sufi philosopher.
- He argues that pantheism, materialism, and determinism were not unique to Sufism but shared by ancient thinkers (Lucretius, Epicurus).
- Khayyám, living in a politically and religiously oppressive era, likely developed his skeptical worldview independently.
- FitzGerald cites authorities (Von Hammer, Sir William Ouseley) who describe Khayyám as a free-thinker opposed to Sufi hypocrisy.
- He notes that in Nicolas’ own edition, Sufis are disparaged, undermining the idea that Khayyám was one.
C. Literal vs. Mystical Readings (Third & Fourth Paragraphs)
- FitzGerald concedes that some quatrains seem mystical, but others are clearly literal (e.g., washing a corpse with wine, making cups from clay).
- If wine were purely symbolic, why would Khayyám describe physical, even grotesque, acts involving it?
- He accuses Nicolas of censorship: Nicolas omits or softens sensual or "revolting" verses but still claims they refer to "Divinity."
- FitzGerald dismisses the idea of Sufi interpolation, noting that the oldest manuscripts (e.g., Bodleian MS., 1460) lack mystical quatrains, suggesting they were later additions by Sufi admirers.
- Final Contrast: Unlike other Persian poets (who hide behind allegory), Khayyám’s poetry feels personal and direct—like sitting at a table with him after a few drinks.
3. Themes in the Excerpt
A. The Conflict Between Literal and Allegorical Interpretation
- FitzGerald rejects the Sufi tradition of reading poetry as coded spirituality, arguing that Khayyám’s wine is real wine, his skepticism real skepticism.
- This reflects a broader 19th-century debate between Romantic mysticism and empirical skepticism (FitzGerald leans toward the latter).
B. The Figure of Omar Khayyám as a Free-Thinker
- FitzGerald paints Khayyám as a rationalist and epicurean, resisting religious and political dogma.
- The contrast with Sufi poets (who use abstraction) reinforces Khayyám’s earthy, unfiltered voice.
C. The Unreliability of Translation & Interpretation
- FitzGerald questions Nicolas’ objectivity, suggesting his readings are culturally biased (a Persian wanting to claim Khayyám, a Sufi wanting to recruit him).
- This raises meta-questions about translation: Can a Westerner (or a Sufi) truly capture Khayyám’s intent?
D. The Authenticity of the "Man" Behind the Poetry
- FitzGerald emphasizes Khayyám’s humanity—his humor, passions, and flaws—over abstract philosophy.
- This aligns with Victorian individualism and the cult of personality in literature.
4. Literary Devices & Rhetorical Strategies
| Device | Example | Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Irony & Sarcasm | "I hardly knew poor Omar was so far gone till his Apologist informed me." | Mocks Nicolas’ paternalistic interpretation. |
| Rhetorical Questions | "What historical Authority has Mons. Nicolas to show that Omar gave himself up 'avec passion' to Sufi philosophy?" | Challenges Nicolas’ scholarship directly. |
| Appeal to Authority | Cites Von Hammer, Ouseley, and the Bodleian MS. | Strengthens his argument with "objective" sources. |
| Contrast | Sufi poets (abstract) vs. Khayyám (direct, personal) | Highlights Khayyám’s uniqueness. |
| Hyperbole | "d'une sensualite quelquefois revoltante" (Nicolas’ censored verses) | Exaggerates to underscore Nicolas’ hypocrisy. |
| Colloquial Tone | "I cannot help calling him by his—no, not Christian—familiar name." | Makes Khayyám feel accessible, almost like a contemporary. |
5. Significance of the Excerpt
A. Influence on Khayyám’s Reception in the West
- FitzGerald’s literal, hedonistic reading shaped the Western image of Khayyám as a skeptical, wine-loving philosopher (e.g., the famous "A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread—and Thou").
- This contrasted sharply with Islamic interpretations, where Khayyám was often seen as a mystic or even a heretic.
B. The Debate Over Authorial Intent
- The passage exemplifies the tension between biographical and textual criticism.
- Should we read Khayyám’s poetry through his life (as a scientist and freethinker) or through literary tradition (Sufi allegory)?
- FitzGerald privileges the text’s surface meaning, a stance that aligns with modernist and formalist criticism.
C. Orientalism & Cultural Appropriation
- FitzGerald’s dismissal of Sufi readings reflects 19th-century Orientalist attitudes—the assumption that Western scholars could "correct" Eastern interpretations.
- Yet, his admiration for Khayyám’s skepticism also challenged Victorian religiosity, making the Rubáiyát a subversive text in its time.
D. The Role of the Translator as Creator
- FitzGerald’s Rubáiyát was not a faithful translation but a reimagining; this preface justifies his creative liberties.
- His defense of a "plain" Khayyám mirrors his own disillusionment with Victorian morality and organized religion.
6. Conclusion: Why This Excerpt Matters
This passage is not just a scholarly dispute but a manifestation of larger cultural and philosophical clashes:
- Science vs. Mysticism (Khayyám the astronomer vs. Khayyám the Sufi).
- East vs. West (Persian tradition vs. European interpretation).
- Text vs. Context (literal reading vs. allegorical tradition).
FitzGerald’s insistence on Khayyám’s earthly, skeptical voice made the Rubáiyát a beloved work of rebellion for generations of readers—from Victorian agnostics to 20th-century existentialists. The excerpt, then, is not just about Omar Khayyám but about how we choose to read, interpret, and reclaim literature across cultures and centuries.
Final Thought: FitzGerald’s Khayyám is a man, not a mystic—a poet who drank, doubted, and laughed in the face of eternity. Whether this is the "real" Khayyám is debatable, but it is certainly the Khayyám who captured the imagination of the modern world.