Omar Khayyám en de Rubaiyat in vertaling en romans. Kees Hendrikse
In: Boekenpost 10 (2002), 61, p. 34–35
In de serie onder de titel BOEKBOEKEN bespreekt Kees Hendrikse bekende en minder bekende schrijvers met hun boeken over mensen die boeken lezen, schrijven, drukken of verkopen: Garfield, Canetti, Bradbury, Hanff, e.a. Dit keer de apocriefe lotgevallen van een wereldberoemde tekst.
The Impact of Power and Ideology on Edward FitzGerald’s Translation of the Rubáiyát. A Postcolonial Approach. Bentolhoda Nakhaei
In: TranscUlturAl, 11 (2019) 1, p. 35-48
Translation after the Persianate? Omar Khayyam and Late Perso-Ottoman Poetic Connectivity. Mehtap Ozdemir
In: Philological Encounters (2023), p. 1-28
This article focuses on late Ottoman/Turkish translations of Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat (“quatrains”) as part of Perso-Ottoman poetic connectivity in the early twentieth century. Situating the reception of Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat at the nexus of world literature, literary historiography, and translatability, the article explores the methodological affordances of translation to redress the overdominance of discursive and historical points of rupture in studies of late Persianate literatures. To that end, the article offers a comparative reading of Hüseyin Daniş’s Rubaiyat-ı Ömer Hayyam (1927), Rıza Tevfik’s Ömer Hayyam ve Rubaileri (1945), both of which are based on their co-authored translation in 1922, and Mevlevi Mustafa Rüşdi b. Mehmet Tevfik’s translation of Khayyam’s quatrains (1931–32). By way of specific attention to translation as hermeneutics, this article suggests that translating after the Persianate did not involve a straight shift from regional translation practices to translation proper nor was it exclusively a modus operandi of literary and linguistic nationalism. In drawing attention to how translation can accommodate both synchronic and diachronic mobility, the article therefore calls for alternative comparative methodologies which attend to persistent textual practices as well as conjunctural discourses in literary history.
A Case of Mistaken Identity in Translation: “Omar Khayyam’s Rubaiyat” in Dazai Osamu’s Novel No Longer Human. George T. Sipos.
In: Sciendo. Romanian Journal of English Studies, 18 (2021) 1, p. 163-172.
FitzOmar the fascinating “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”. D. Rice
English review, 24 (2013) 1, pp. 16-19.
Edward FitzGerald’s imperfectly translated collection of 75 quatrains by the 12C Persian polymath Omar Khayyam has become a global phenomenon since its initial publication in 1859. The best known poetry book in the world, the “Rubaiyat” has been produced in at least 900 editions in 85 languages, while 130 artists have illustrated it and 150 composers have set it to music. This article suggests the many reasons for its success, such as the brevity and consequent digestibility of its four-line stanzas, the vivacity of the dramas they contain, and their sense of honesty, humour and reassurance. It also acknowledges the astute marketing and merchandising campaigns that helped to establish the collection’s assimilation into popular culture.
From FitzGerald’s Omar to Pessoa’s Rubaiyat. Jerónimo Pizarro.
In: Castro (Ed.) 2013 – Fernando Pessoa’s modernity without frontiers, pp. 87-100.
Essay on Pessoa’s interests in Khayyám’s rubáiyát, his translations and his publications on Khayyám.
A Comparative Study of Modulation in English Translations of Khayyam’s Quatrains. Mojtaba Delzendehrooy ; Amin Karimnia.
Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 70 (2013), pp. 28–40.
During the process of translation, the relatedness of content and form sometimes leads to some changes in semantics or point of view of the original text. This study tries to investigate the instances of modulation occurred in the translation of poetry. To this end, two English translations of Khayyam’s quatrains (FitzGerald and Emami) were studied to see what kinds of modulation have been used by the translators and consequently how they have changed the semantics and points of view of the original work; i.e. Khayyam’s quatrains. The two translations were studied carefully to identify the instances of modulations occurred.
Victorian Poetry and Translation. Richard Cronin
In: Reading Victorian Poetry. Richard Cronin. Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012, pp. 114-140.
It was not a great age of poetic translation, but in D.G. Rossetti and Edward FitzGerald it had two great translators, and almost all the most important Victorian poets produced translations of one kind or another. Greek tragedy proved particularly attractive: Barrett Browning translated Aeschylus’s Prometheus Bound not once but twice (1833 and 1850), and Augusta Webster translated it too, before going on to publish a version of Euripides’ Medea (1866 and 1868). Robert Browning accommodated within two of his later poems, Balaustion’s Adventure (1871) and Aristophanes’ Apology (1875), complete translations of two other plays by Euripides, Alcestis and Heracles . Edward FitzGerald translated the Agamemnon (1865) as well as Omar Khayyám.
Quatrains of ‘Umar Khayyám in Turkish, and Turkish quatrains. S. Sötemann.
In: The great ‘Umar Khayyám. Leiden, Leiden University Press, 2012. pp. 97-104
Sötemann explains that while Ottoman poets were deeply influenced by Persian poetry, they avoided composing quatrains, preferring other literary forms. Yahya Kemal Beyatlı (1884-1958) was an exception, as he tried to master all the forms and genres of Ottoman poetry. In his efforts, Beyatlı translated Khayyám and introduced his poetry to Turkish people.
Orientalism translated – Omar Khayyam through Persian, English and Hindi. Harish Trivedi.
In: Colonial transactions. English literature in India. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1995., p. 29-52.
The Khayyam texts assembled in this essay constitute a partial but significant narrative of the formation of the modem Indian identity not only in terms of a Perso-Indian response to a Perso-Anglian poetic construct, but also in terms of the constantly shifting grounds of the linguistic basis of that response. The progress of Khayyam from Persian not initially into Hindi but into English into Hindi into English-English into Indian-English not only reflects closely the linguistic-cultural evolution of modem India from c. 1780 to 1989: it also provides a complex ‘oriëntalist’ sub-text of our colonial and post-colonial condition over this period.