THE IMMORTAL OMAR

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23081, 6 January 1937, Page 12

THE IMMORTAL OMAR

ORIGIN OF RUBAIYAT Recent reference to Edward Fitzgerald's translation of Omar Khayyam’s quatrains thoughtful of the fact that of Omar himself we know very little, says a writer in the Melbourne Age. We do know, however, that he has derived from the “ translation ” of the Rubaiyat much kudos that is not rightly his, and that in real life he was anything but thr whimsical, wine-bibbing old philosopher that many lovers of the so-called “ Omarian ” verses would like to imagine him. The origin of Omar, like that of much of the uoetry attributed to him, is largely conjecture. It is generally believed that he was born at Nishapur, in the north-east of Persia, between 1025 and 1050 A.D., and 1123 is usually accepted as the year in which he “ veiled his countenance in the dust,” for the quite simple reason that there is less evidence against that than against any other year. The first authentic record of Omar is that in 1074 he presided over a commission appointed by Sultan Malikshah to reform the calendar. Following Malikshah’s death there was a period of religious and political strife, and Omar sought fresh fields. Presumably he taught Greek science, astronomy, and philosophy, and wrote poetry, for the next 38 years, although it is significant that his friend and admirer, Nizami Aruzi, who was a professional poet and author of the Chahar Maqala (Four Discourses), ranks Omar as an astrologer, and make no reference to his poetry. The next definite placing of Omar is at Balkh fthe ancient “Mother of Cities.” which is said to have been built by Kyamoors. the founder of the Persian monarchy). MADE HIS PROPHECY It v/as at Balkh in 1112 that he uttered his prophecy: “My grave will be in a spot where the trees will shed their

blossoms on me twice a year.” He was buried at Nishapur, which was destroyed by the Tartars about a century later.

A later record shatters our cherished illusion that Omar would have been a delightful companion with whom to dally in the wilderness with a loaf of bread, a flask of wine, and a book of verse. In fact, he was irritable, illtempered, and parsimonious, and seldom betrayed any true emotion of affection. His dying words were a sort of veiled apology for that agnosticism which he had professed, not without some irritation, in his earlier life. “ O God.” he said, “ I have known Thee to the full extent of my power; forgive me, therefore, since my knowledge of Thee is my only means of approaching Thee.” Primarily, Omar was a man of science and an agnostic, and he viewed life with the bitterness of a soul resentful of being made subject to the decrees of a Providence which vouchsafed no explanations of past motives or promises for the future. A hint of this spirit is noticeable in his repeated exhortations to empty the cup of pleasure before it is dashed from our lips. In mood of fiercer revolt is the quatrain:—

When He first moulded into life my clay, The works that thence proceed in black array Full well He knew; no sin but He ordained it: Why burn me, then, on Resurrection Day?

Since much of the “ Omarian" poetry is definitely not the work of Omar, a literal translation of two verses that are reasonably authenticated is given as an indication of his outlook on life;— To the circle wherein is our coming and going Neither beginning nor end is visible No one in this world can rightly tell Whence is our coming and whither is our going. When the Lord moulded His creatures out of diverse elements, Why did He subject them to decay? If they are well shaped, why does He shatter them?

There is the man himself, the man of science irritated by the mysteries of birth and death, and charging his Maker with responsibility for the shortcomings of mankind. MANY SPURIOUS VERSES

Since 1897, when Professor Shukovski created a mild literary sensation by showing that 82 of the quatrains ascribed to Omar appeared in the works of other Persian poets, research has revealed that much more of the supposedly Omarian poetry is, either definitely or inferentially. not his work. Professor R. A. Nicholson, the eminent Persian and Arabian scholar, of Cambridge University, writes:—“Many quatrains included in the so-called Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam are unquestionably his. A very large proportion, however —probably not less than nine-tenths—of the whole collection is the work of other hands. Both in style and matter the spurious quatrains are indistinguishable from the genuine.” Several old texts of the Rubaiyat are preserved, and they vary in extent from 801 to 604, 349 and 158 quatrains. Of these manuscripts the last-mentioned, which is in the Bodleian Library, is the most ancient, being dated 1461. and it was upon this one that Fitzgerald based his original translation, running into 75 quatrains. Quoting again from Professor Nicholson, “The Persian collection consists of a large number of independent quatrains, arranged in the order of thenrhymes and totally unconnected with each other: they are not even the work of one author or of a single epoch, but extend over half a millennium of time and emobdy the divergent and contradictory points of view of a hundred different writers.” From this bewildering collection Fitzgerald made his choice, and prepared what he himself has described as his “ very unilateral ” translation. “ many quatrains being mashed together.” Throughout, however. he has preserved the spirit revealed by the few authenticated verses of Omar, and given to English literature a thing of beauty, “ a sort of Epicurean eclogue in a Persian garden.”