rubaiyat of omar khayyam-第3章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



that　falls　over　in　the　last。　　As　usual　with　such　kind　of　Oriental

Verse；　the　Rubaiyat　follow　one　another　according　to　Alphabetic

Rhymea　strange　succession　of　Grave　and　Gay。　　Those　here　selected　are

strung　into　something　of　an　Eclogue；　with　perhaps　a　less　than　equal

proportion　of　the　〃Drink　and　make…merry；〃　which　（genuine　or　not）

recurs　over…frequently　in　the　Original。　　Either　way；　the　Result　is　sad

enough：　saddest　perhaps　when　most　ostentatiously　merry：　more　apt　to

move　Sorrow　than　Anger　toward　the　old　Tentmaker；　who；　after　vainly

endeavoring　to　unshackle　his　Steps　from　Destiny；　and　to　catch　some

authentic　Glimpse　of　TO…MORROW；　fell　back　upon　TO…DAY　（which　has

outlasted　so　many　To…morrows！）　as　the　only　Ground　he　had　got　to　stand

upon；　however　momentarily　slipping　from　under　his　Feet。





＇From　the　Third　Edition。＇





While　the　second　Edition　of　this　version　of　Omar　was　preparing；

Monsieur　Nicolas；　French　Consul　at　Resht；　published　a　very　careful　and

very　good　Edition　of　the　Text；　from　a　lithograph　copy　at　Teheran；

comprising　464　Rubaiyat；　with　translation　and　notes　of　his　own。



Mons。　Nicolas；　whose　Edition　has　reminded　me　of　several　things；　and

instructed　me　in　others；　does　not　consider　Omar　to　be　the　material

Epicurean　that　I　have　literally　taken　him　for；　but　a　Mystic；　shadowing

the　Deity　under　the　figure　of　Wine；　Wine…bearer；　&c。；　as　Hafiz　is

supposed　to　do；　in　short；　a　Sufi　Poet　like　Hafiz　and　the　rest。



I　cannot　see　reason　to　alter　my　opinion；　formed　as　it　was　more　than　a

dozen　years　ago　when　Omar　was　first　shown　me　by　one　to　whom　I　am

indebted　for　all　I　know　of　Oriental；　and　very　much　of　other；

literature。　　He　admired　Omar's　Genius　so　much；　that　he　would　gladly

have　adopted　any　such　Interpretation　of　his　meaning　as　Mons。　Nicolas'

if　he　could。　　That　he　could　not；　appears　by　his　Paper　in　the

Calcutta　Review　already　so　largely　quoted；　in　which　he　argues　from　the

Poems　themselves；　as　well　as　from　what　records　remain　of　the　Poet's

Life。



　　　Perhaps　would　have　edited　the　Poems　himself　some　years　ago。　　He

　　may　now　as　little　approve　of　my　Version　on　one　side；　as　of　Mons。

　　Nicolas'　Theory　on　the　other。



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　Textwhich　is

often　enoughMons。　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〃　indeedwhich　〃les　convenances〃　do

not　permit　him　to　translate；　but　still　which　the　reader　cannot　but

refer　to　〃La　Divinite。〃　　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　hisno；　not　Christianfamiliar　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

Manthe　Bon…hommeOmar　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。



　　　A　note　to　Quatrain　234　admits　that；　however　clear　the　mystical

　　meaning　of　such　Images　must　be　to　Europeans；　they　are　not　quoted

　　without　〃rougissant〃　even　by　laymen　in　Persia〃Quant　aux　termes　de

　　tendresse　qui　commencent　ce　quatrain；　comme　tant　d'autres　dans　ce

　　recueil；　nos　lecteurs；　habitues　maintenant　a　1'etrangete　des

　　expressions　si　souvent　employees　par　Kheyam　pour　rendre　ses　pensees

　　sur　l'amour　divin；　et　a　la　singularite　des　images　trop　orientales；

　　d'une　sensualite　quelquefois　revoltante；　n'auront　pas　de　peine　a　se

　　persuader　qu'il　s'agit　de　la　Divinite；　bien　que　cette　conviction

　　soit　vivement　discutee　par　les　moullahs　musulmans；　et　meme　par

　　beaucoup　de　laiques；　qui　rougissent　veritablement　d'une　pareille

　　licence　de　leur　compatriote　a　1'egard　des　choses　spirituelles。〃



I　must　say　that　I；　for　one；　never　wholly　believed　in　the　Mysticism　of

Hafiz。　　It　does　not　appear　there　was　any　danger　in　holding　and　singing

Sufi　Pantheism；　so　long　as　the　Poet　made　his　Salaam　to　Mohammed　at　the

beginning　and　end　of　his　Song。　　Under　such　conditions　Jelaluddin；

Jami；　Attar；　and　others　sang；　using　Wine　and　Beauty　indeed　as　Images

to　illustrate；　not　as　a　Mask　to　hide；　the　Divinity　they　were

celebrating。　　Perhaps　some　Allegory　less　liable　to　mistake　or　abuse

had　been　better　among　so　inflammable　a　People：　much　more　so　when；　as

some　think　with　Hafiz　and　Omar；　the　abstract　is　not　only　likened　to；

but　identified　with；　the　sensual　Image；　hazardous；　if　not　to　the

Devotee　himself；　yet　to　his　weaker　Brethren；　and　worse　for　the　Profane

in　proportion　as　the　Devotion　of　the　Initiated　grew　warmer。　　And　all

for　what？　　To　be　tantalized　with　Images　of　sensual　enjoyment　which

must　be　renounced　if　one　would　approximate　a　God；　who　according　to　the

Doctrine；　is　Sensual　Matter　as　well　as　Spirit；　and　into　whose　Universe

one　expects　unconsciously　to　merge　after　Death；　without　hope　of　any

posthumous　Beatitude　in　another　world　to　compensate　for　all　one's　self…

denial　in　this。　　Lucretius'　blind　Divinity　certainly　merited；　and

probably　got；　as　much　self…sacrifice　as　this　of　the　Sufi；　and　the

burden　of　Omar's　Songif　not　〃Let　us　eat〃is　assured