The Rubaiyat: Quatrain LXII

This is the fourth in a series of linked quatrains that plays with the idea of the Potter/Creator and its creations.  Once again, its creations, the Pots (humans?) try to make sense of their situation, and once again, attempt to rationalize their future.



First Edition: Quatrain LXII

Another said--"Why, ne'er a peevish Boy,
Would break the Bowl from which he drank in Joy;
    Shall He that made the Vessel in pure Love
And Fancy, in an after Rage destroy!"



Second Edition:  Quatrain XCII

Another said--"Why, ne'er a peevish Boy
Would break the Cup from which he drank in Joy;
    Shall He that of His own free Fancy made
The Vessel, in an after-rage destroy!"


Fifth Edition:  Quatrain LXXXV 

Then said a Second--"Ne'er a peevish Boy
Would break the Bowl from which he drank in joy,
    And He that with his hand the Vessel made
Will surely not in after Wrath destroy!"


FitzGerald has made several changes as usual, but none that might be considered significant.  He made no changes in the first line of either the first or second editions,  but in the fifth edition, "Another said" becomes "Then said a Second," and "Why, ne'er a peevish Boy" is changed slightly when he drops the "Why."  The "Why"  seems to be used as an intensifier there which strengthens the claim about the peevish Boy in the first and second editions, but also adds a questioning element to the claim.   In the fifth addition, it becomes a simple direct statement that a peevish boy wouldn't destroy the Bowl.

In the second line, "Bowl" in the first edition becomes "Cup" in the second version, but reverts back to Bowl in the fifth edition..


The third and fourth lines display the most changes:

First edition
  Shall He that made the Vessel in pure Love
And Fancy, in an after Rage destroy!"

Second edition:
  Shall He that of His own free Fancy made
The Vessel, in an after-rage destroy!"

Fifth edition:
  And He that with his hand the Vessel made
Will surely not in after Wrath destroy!"


The idea doesn't change through all three versions:  the Potter will not destroy something he made.  The first and second editions, though, appear to be a question, but the final punctuation mark is an exclamation point, not a question mark.  The fifth edition, however, appears to be a direct statement or a reassuring statement to be precise.

This quatrain like several previous ones is an attempt to rationalize away the teachings of both the Islamic and Christian traditions that predict a dire future for many--eternal punishment in hell for wrongdoers.  By using a weak analogy, the pots reassure themselves (or attempt to anyway) that a merciful and compassionate Creator would not condemn its creations to the eternal fires of hell.  The pot says that even a peevish Boy wouldn't destroy something he created, yet the very definition of "peevish" is "discontented, ill-natured, contrary."  Destroying the pot is just something contrary that a peevish boy would do.     

This relates back to earlier quatrains in which the Poet Narrator spells out very clearly that in spite of the teachings of saints, sages, and theologians, we really know nothing about where we came from and where we are going.  Now we are given the optimistic hopes of empty Pots about their fates.   What is especially ironic is that philosophers and theologians have stated repeatedly over the centuries that the mind of God is so far beyond the comprehension of humankind that it is impossible for us to understand the actions of God or its reasons for its actions.  As William Cowper tells us--

"God moves in mysterious ways
His wonders to perform
He plants his footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm."


Yet, everyday, if not every hour, we are bombarded by those who claim to know the mind of God.


It is this that I think is the point of this linked series of quatrains.  The Poet is restating points made earlier, that we don't know what is to be our fate.  I read recently that several institutions have received grants to scientifically study the issue--is there an afterlife?  It should be interesting to read their conclusions in a few years.