Wednesday, January 19, 2011

The Rubaiyat: Quatrain XXXVI

Quatrain XXXVI is the third in a series of four linked quatrains, all referring to a drinking vessel that has a limited power of speech. The poet has queried the wise and the saintly in the past and now the earthly for knowledge, and at best he learns from the earthly that once gone he will never return--So Drink!



First Edition: Quatrain XXXVI

For in the Market-place, one Dusk of Day,
I watch'd the Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd--"Gently, Brother, gently, pray!"



Second Edition: Quatrain XL

For I remember stopping by the way
To watch a Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all-obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd--"Gently, Brother, gently, pray!"



Fifth Edition: Quatrain XXXVII

For I remember stopping by the way
To watch a Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all-obliterated Tongue
It murmur'd--"Gently, Brother, gently, pray!"


The second and fifth editions are identical, for the only changes FitzGerald made occurred between the first and second editions. The changes in the first line seem to move it from the present to the past. In the first edition, he says that he stopped to watch a potter while in the second edition he tells us that he remembered stopping to watch the potter. Also, in the first edition he says it was at Dusk while in later editions there is no mention of the time of day. The third and fourth lines are identical for all three editions, with the minor exception of the hyphen inserted between "all" and "obliterated" in the second and fifth editions.

The reference to clay, as I have mentioned in previous posts, echoes the creation stories in both the Bible and the Koran, with humans specifically pointed out as coming from clay or earth or even dust. The vessel is shown as having some limited speech ability, but it is hard to understand. In Quatrain XXXIV, it "murmur's," and in Quatrain XXXV, it speaks with "fugitive articulation" And, now in Quatrain XXXVI, it speaks with an all obliterated tongue, which could easily explain why it is hard to understand.

What's new in this quatrain is the reference to the Potter, an analogue to the creator? What's interesting here is that the pot calls the Potter "Brother," which is a significant comment in that the creator is normally referred to as the Father. This suggests a more equal relationship between the creator and its creation than one usually finds, or at least that I have found over the years.

Moreover, it seems to remonstrate with the creator and asks that it be more gentle, surely an unusual comment for a creation to make to its creator. Traditionally, the creator is depicted as being all powerful and free to do as it wishes with its creations and jealously insists on its freedom to do as it wishes. One only needs to read Job in the Old Testament for a very clear assertion of its rights.

I find it difficult to make any general comments bearing on the potter and the pot for this theme occurs again in several quatrains. It's not clear yet exactly what the point is, at least to me anyway. I shall have to wait for later quatrains for illumination.

2 comments:

  1. I sure appreciate your comments as I was having trouble and got stuck at the end understanding that quatrain. Perhaps between us we can advance our understanding. Being a creator doesn't mean that the created can't take part in the process.

    And the limitations of language. If you compare ideas to more tangible things a point comes out. You can't have only one side of say a car or even an atom. In the real world everything seems to be three dimensional, but when it comes to the flatter world of words, numbers and ideas we may see one side of an argument at at time, even though there may be some truth in every view. You can look at an physical object from all sides and one side or view isn't that more real than the other. If we are talking about a complex creator or a complex universe there are many sides also. Make sense? I don't find one philosophy to have all the answers, or one economics theory or one political system. I think we have a complex political system and that is as it should be. Different specific situations require the system fit for that situation, just like different types of math for different specific math problems, words for one type of reasoning and images for non verbal logic that the mind uses naturally. As a matter of fact it is quite obvious that we do take part in who we become, but Omar was only asking for gentleness from the universe or perhaps from ourselves. I guess we can do that. I'm thinking that higher levels of abstraction can be unfolded in many directions and still be useful.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous,

    I agree that the quatrain does suggest that the created at least attempts to play a role in creation, which is still considerably different than most creation myths I have encountered.

    What I have always found ironic is that most of the major religious traditions have claimed that the deity is unknowable or ineffable, but then proceed to explain in great detail to their followers just what the deity wants, etc.

    I am reminded of the story of the ten blind men and the elephant. Each man's description depended upon where he was standing.

    ReplyDelete