# Persian: من خودم بهشت و جهنم (Omar Khayyam's Rubaiyat)



## HermanTheGerman

One of Omar Khayyam's most famous quatrains has been translated by Edward FitzGerald in the 1937 edition as follows:

LXXI
   I sent my Soul through the Invisible, 
Some letter of that After-life to spell: 
And after many days my Soul return'd 
_And said, "Behold, Myself am Heav'n and Hell:"_


The back-translation of the last line would be something like "من خودم بهشت و جهنم" however, I couldn't find any quatrain in the Persian original at Wikisource that even remotely matches the back-translation or the English translation. 

Is this yet another case of a translator taking too many liberties with the original?


----------



## Alfaaz

I have very little knowledge of Persian, but have read the English version and some Urdu translations of Umar Khayyam's Rubaiyaat and will say that overall Mr. Edward Fitzgerald probably did a "rough translation". Many college and university World Literature professors sometimes jokingly say that Fitzgerald should have gotten an award of some sort for creating something drastically different in the name of translation!  However, some of his translations are closer than others. 

Having said that, I'll say that both the Farsi original by Khayyaam and the English version by Fitzgerald are great works of literature in their languages! 

Let's see what others say...


----------



## marrish

I haven't succeeded in matching any rubaa3yii from Wiki either. I'll have a look at my book tomorrow.
Edit: no need to do it, thanks to QP SaaHib, but I'll still take advantage of this occasion to refresh the memory!


----------



## Qureshpor

HermanTheGerman said:


> One of Omar Khayyam's most famous quatrains has been translated by Edward FitzGerald in the 1937 edition as follows:
> 
> LXXI
> I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
> Some letter of that After-life to spell:
> And after many days my Soul return'd
> _And said, "Behold, Myself am Heav'n and Hell:"_
> 
> 
> The back-translation of the last line would be something like "من خودم بهشت و جهنم" however, I couldn't find any quatrain in the Persian original at Wikisource that even remotely matches the back-translation or the English translation.
> 
> Is this yet another case of a translator taking too many liberties with the original?



My dear HemanTheGerman, If I were you, I would n't waste too much time trying to match Fitzgerald's new creations with Khayyam's originals. But, here is the rubaa3ii which matches this particular transformation.

برترز سپهر خاطرم روز نخست
لوح و قلم و بهشت و دوزخ میجست
پس گفت مرا معلم از فکر درست
لوح و قلم و بهشت و دوزخ با تست


----------



## yields

Throw away the Fitzgerald translation I say, I read (in another translation of Khayyam) that it was meant to wet the appetite of 19th century british people with its mistranslations. Many versions have both persian and translated language together in one book.


----------



## fdb

Actually, modern scholarship is more or less agreed that the astronomer Umar al-Khayyami did not write any poetry in Persian, and only a few very mediocre verses in Arabic. The "Khayyamic" quatrains are a product of the Ilkhanid period, or later.


----------



## HermanTheGerman

QURESHPOR said:


> My dear HemanTheGerman, If I were you, I wouldn't waste too much time trying to match Fitzgerald's new creations with Khayyam's originals.



Thanks for identifying the quatrain for me. I really appreciate it. 

I'd also like to thank everybody else who answered for their insightful comments.


----------



## fdb

Please consult Storey/de Blois, Persian literature, vol. 5, 2nd edition, 2004, pp. 299-318, with lots of references to earlier studies. Schaeder said already in 1934 that the name of Umar i Khayyam "is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature". But of course it takes a while for academic discussion to filter through to cyberspace.


----------



## Qureshpor

Alfaaz said:


> I have very little knowledge of Persian, but have read the English version and some Urdu translations of Umar Khayyam's Rubaiyaat and will say that overall Mr. Edward Fitzgerald probably did a "rough translation". Many college and university World Literature professors sometimes jokingly say that Fitzgerald should have gotten an award of some sort for creating something drastically different in the name of translation!  However, some of his translations are closer than others.
> 
> Having said that, I'll say that both the Farsi original by Khayyaam and the English version by Fitzgerald are great works of literature in their languages!
> 
> Let's see what others say...



To be fair to Edward Fitzgerald, I believe his work can not be termed as "translations" but more "renditions" or "transformations". Although very few of the rubaa3iis "match" the original, one can not but admire his creativity and that too in rhyme. I spent quite considerable time going through my sources to come up with the exact rubaa3ii which was being sought by HermanTheGerman. And it seems to have hardly any resemblence to Fitzgerald's work.


----------



## Qureshpor

HermanTheGerman said:


> Thanks for identifying the quatrain for me. I really appreciate it. QUOTE]
> 
> You are welcome and please do not hesitate to ask for any further assistence, even by PM if necessary.


----------



## eskandar

fdb said:


> Please consult Storey/de Blois, Persian literature, vol. 5, 2nd edition, 2004, pp. 299-318, with lots of references to earlier studies. Schaeder said already in 1934 that the name of Umar i Khayyam "is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature". But of course it takes a while for academic discussion to filter through to cyberspace.


The claim "It is accepted now, I should think, by everyone that the great majority of the quatrains that have come to be ascribed to 'Umar could not possibly be his" is undermined by the fact that many of the very references they cite in the section on Khayyam identify him as a Persian-language poet. I have to acknowledge that there is some academic debate on this subject, which I wasn't aware of before consulting the above "Persian Literature," but to say that there is consensus on the issue still seems to be a gross overstatement.


----------



## fdb

eskandar said:


> "It is accepted now, I should think, by everyone that the great majority of the quatrains that have come to be ascribed to 'Umar could not possibly be his"



There are two different issues here. First: that the “great majority” of the thousand or so “Khayyamic” quatrains were composed at a much later period, and that many of them are ascribed more creditably to other authors. I think you will find that all professional Persianists accept this. The other question is whether ALL of the “Khayyamic” quatrains are spurious (this was the view, for example, of Schaeder and Tabatabai), or whether a very small number of them (say a dozen or so) are possibly authentic (as argued, for example, by Ali Dashti).

Of course, the real question is not how many scholars line up on which side of the question, but who has the better arguments. You should however take on board that there are different views on this subject.


----------



## Alfaaz

QURESHPOR said:
			
		

> To be fair to Edward Fitzgerald, I believe his work can not be termed as "translations" but more _*"renditions" or "transformations".*_ Although very few of the rubaa3iis "match" the original, one can not but admire his creativity and that too in rhyme.


Agree, hence the use of quotation marks and the following phrase: 


			
				Alfaaz said:
			
		

> ...and will say that overall Mr. Edward Fitzgerald probably did a "rough translation". Many college and university World Literature professors sometimes jokingly say that Fitzgerald should have gotten an award of some sort for *creating something drastically different in the name of translation*! Having said that, I'll say that both the Farsi original by Khayyaam and the English version by Fitzgerald are great works of literature in their languages!


Fitzgerald work was (and still is considered to some extent--for basically introducing students to World, specifically Persian, Middle Eastern, and Islamic culture and literature, in addition to poets like Rumi) to be "translations" of Persian into English, at least by the English speaking world, as also suggested by yields's comment quoted below; Of course, _now _it is mentioned that Fitzgerald's work wasn't exactly a translation, but due to its popularity...it is still being used in the syllabus to introduce students to poetry/literature of that part of the world, etc. etc. 


			
				yields said:
			
		

> I read (in another translation of Khayyam) that it was meant to wet the appetite of 19th century british people with its mistranslations.


----------



## neg-ost

fdb said:


> Actually, modern scholarship is more or less agreed that the astronomer Umar al-Khayyami did not write any poetry in Persian, and only a few very mediocre verses in Arabic. The "Khayyamic" quatrains are a product of the Ilkhanid period, or later.





fdb said:


> Please consult Storey/de Blois, Persian literature, vol. 5, 2nd edition, 2004, pp. 299-318, with lots of references to earlier studies. Schaeder said already in 1934 that the name of Umar i Khayyam "is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature". But of course it takes a while for academic discussion to filter through to cyberspace.


Ok, that was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen!!!! We’re even using his calendar which is totally different from any other calendars in the world (even Arabs) and it is called تقويم جلالى.There is even a major in Iranian universities which focuses on Khayyam’s poems and his school of thoughts and now you’re saying that Khayyam "is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature" 😂😂😂😂😂😂 I’ll definitely show this comment to my Persian literature professor


----------



## Qureshpor

neg-ost said:


> Ok, that was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen!!!! We’re even using his calendar which is totally different from any other calendars in the world (even Arabs) and it is called تقويم جلالى.There is even a major in Iranian universities which focuses on Khayyam’s poems and his school of thoughts and now you’re saying that Khayyam "is to be struck out from the history of Persian literature" 😂😂😂😂😂😂 I’ll definitely show this comment to my Persian literature professor


You will agree @neg-ost that there are always two sides to the story. Before rejecting outright what @fdb (a scholar and a gentleman) has said, it would be fair to read the references he has provided and then come up with a view or counter argument.


----------



## neg-ost

this gentleman doesn't even know the difference between the Persian language and Arabic!!!
and more important than that the main point of this topic wasn't about Khayyam it was about the poem itself. besides I have seen people from other countries esp Non-Asian ones who are trying to deny that these legacies are not from the old persia and the language is not persian!!


----------



## Qureshpor

neg-ost said:


> this gentleman doesn't even know the difference between the Persian language and Arabic!!!
> and more important than that the main point of this topic wasn't about Khayyam it was about the poem itself. besides I have seen people from other countries esp Non-Asian ones who are trying to deny that these legacies are not from the old persia and the language is not persian!!


Ok, we'll leave it at this.


----------



## neg-ost

by the way the Original Persian is:
*برتر ز سپهر، خاطرم روز نخست        
   لوح و قلم و بهشت و دوزخ می جست
پس گفت مرا معلم از رای درست    
     لوح و قلم و بهشت و دوزخ در تست

لوح و قلم و بهشت و دوزخ در تست means that you are heaven and hell*


----------

