Archives

Secular Pleasures and Fitzgerald’s Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Secular Pleasures and Fitzgerald’s Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. A. Çelikkol.
Victorian Poetry, 51 (2013) 4, pp. 511-532.

The author starts from the point of view that FitzGerald’s poem “imagines a secular experience that resists the reign of reason. Musing on transcendental matters cannot help the speaker to make sense of his own existence, but neither can rational inquiry. (…) he relates to the material world around him by seeking and embracing pleasure. Through the senses of wonder, connectedness, and enchantment inspired by the self’s engagement with the natural world, FitzGerald transfers some of the most fulfilling aspects of religion onto a secular experience.” The essays then goes on to demonstrate how this idea is an “articulation of some of the insights that have come to inform the critical study of the secular today”.

The discovery of the Rubáiyát

The discovery of the Rubáiyát. Robert Bernard Martin.
In: Edward FitzGerald’s The Rubáiyat of Omar Khayyám. Ed. by H. Bloom. Philadelphia, Chelsea House, 2004. p. 77-95.
(From With Friends Possessed: A Life of Edward FitzGerald, 1985.)

Martin considers the death of Fitzgerald’s great friend, William Browne, as the significant event which shaped the author’s life. The consensus to explain the Rubaiyat’s success is that “the times were ripe” for works repudiating the traditional religious morality and attempting to find an alternative to it. It is indeed startling to realise that the date of the Rubaiyat’s first appearance, 1859, coincides with that of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Young Eliot’s Rebellion

Young Eliot’s Rebellion. V.M. d’Ambrosio.
In: Edward FitzGerald’s The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám. Ed. by H. Bloom. Philadelphia, Chelsea House, 2004. p. 119-149.
(From Eliot Possessed: T. S. Eliot and FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat. 1989)

The reception to the Rubaiyat in America is presented in “Young Eliot’s Rebellion” (pp. 119-149), where Vinni Marie D’Ambrosio introduces us to the influence it had on T.S. Eliot who discovered it in 1902. The ambiance of the time was pervaded by the rage for or against the Rubaiyat, which was considered to have played a role in the breakdown of America’s Protestant religion and of the Temperance ethic that the religion had subsumed. This cultural milieu of Eliot as a youth explains several of his poems and, as the author concludes, the youthful Eliot may have felt he was “not an imitator of Omar, but a manly, if secret, disciple of him”. (Abstract from: Abstracta Iranica)

Attempts at locating the Rubaiyat in Indian philosophical thought

Attempts at locating the Rubaiyat in Indian philosophical thought. A. Rangarajan.
In: The great ‘Umar Khayyám. Leiden, Leiden University Press, 2012. pp. 233–243.

In this article Rangarajan gives a metaphysical reading of Khayyám’s quatrains by comparing Khayyám’s description of human existence with the supernatural order of Hinduism. Moreover, the author concentrates on other religions such as Buddhism, Jainism and Ajivika, showing how Khayyám’s philosophy matches the tenets of these religions.

Khayyám’s universal appeal: man, wine, and the hereafter in the quatrains

Khayyám’s universal appeal: man, wine, and the hereafter in the quatrains. A.A. Seyed-Gohrab.
In: The great ‘Umar Khayyám. Leiden, Leiden University Press, 2012. pp. 11-38.

Introductory essay, in which the author discusses a number of aspects in respect to the study of Omar Khayyám and his rubáiyát: the contents of the quatrains; man, the world and the hereafter; doubt versus certainty; the knot of death; flora and fauna; the pot and the pot-maker; who is the beloved; people with discernment; in vino veritas; activities in the world.

Reading the Rubá’iyyát as “resistance literature”

Reading the Rubá’iyyát as “resistance literature”. Mehdi Aminrazavi.
In: The great ‘Umar Khayyám. Leiden, Leiden University Press, 2012. pp. 39-53.

Aminrazavi argues that many of the Rubáiyát were written as a reaction to the rise of Islamic orthodoxy and the demise of the intellectual freedom which was so prevalent in the first four centuries of the Islamic history. He argues that once Khayyám’s Rubáiyát are placed within the historical context of his time, they will no longer appear to be the pessimistic existential bemoaning of a poet-philosopher like Schopenhauer. Rather, one can see the Rubáiyát as an intellectual critique of the rise of orthodox and legalistic Islam as represented by the faith-based theology of the Ash‘arite.