Saturday, March 12, 2016

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, Second Edition, Quatrain LXIII

The following is another of the quatrains Edward FitzGerald introduced into his Second Edition of the Rubaiyat and remained through all subsequent editions.   


Second Edition, Quatrain LXIII

Why, be this Juice the growth of God, who dare
Blaspheme the twisted tendril as a Snare?
      A Blessing, we should use it, should we not?
And if a Curse--why, then, Who set it there?



Fifth Edition, Quatrain LXI

Why, be this Juice the growth of God, who dare
Blaspheme the twisted tendril as a Snare?
      A Blessing, we should use it, should we not?
And if a Curse--why, then, Who set it there?


I see no differences between the Second and the Fifth Editions.


This is probably one of the quatrains that caused Khayyam to be attacked and reviled as a heretic and destined for eternal damnation by religious authorities.  Wine, of course, was forbidden the faithful as the handiwork of Satan, and, in this quatrain, Khayyam not only defends drinking wine and calls it "A Blessing" but insists God, not Satan, created it.


If Allah created everything, that must include grape vines, so how could that be bad or evil?  Would God create something evil?  I have read attempts to defend Khayyam from the charges of heresy by insisting that he really didn't mean wine at all.  When Khayyam refers to wine, he really means God's grace!  What is never explained is why Khayyam didn't simply refer to God's grace and, instead, substituted something forbidden, something condemned as evil for God's grace.

There are some quatrains where this interpretation could work, but there are too many where it makes no sense at all.  And in this quatrain, it doesn't even come close to being reasonable for I don't see how one could argue that Khayyam really meant God's grace.

15 comments:

  1. I agree, Fred. I would never have come up with anything like God's grace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. madamevauquer,

      In some quatrains, the substitution will work, but there are just too many like this one where a substitution makes no sense.

      Delete
  2. i was trying to remember if omar lived before mohammad arose; if so, alcohol may not have been verboten... that would have been before the 8th c. i think...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle,

      Most accounts agree that Omar Khayyam was born in 1048 AD, or CE, whichever you prefer, and he died sometime between 1120 and 1132. So, the charges of heresy and the prohibition against alcohol did come from Moslems.

      Delete
  3. Fred, grapes and their juices occur naturally, but wine does not occur in nature and is a man-made product. Does that make a difference? I remember my fundamentalist mother arguing that wine was forbidden to Christians; I countered that wine was consumed by people in the Bible, but she rebutted my innocent and sensible argument by insisting that wine then was a necessary substitute to dangerously contaminated water. Ah, the fun and games of rationalizations for purposes of religious doctrine!

    ReplyDelete
  4. R.Y.,

    Using that line of reasoning, then they can only eat raw food, for cooked foods do not occur in nature.

    I think it was Mencken who said “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

    I would change that to religious people are afraid that somebody, somewhere is happy or having fun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred, there are I think people who eat only raw foods, there are plenty of people who eat only fruits and vegetables, and there are people who will eat only what is specifically mentioned (and approved?) in the Bible; so, you can never go wrong by predicting peculiar behaviors and attitudes when human beings are involved, which seems to suggest the other animals are much more sensible in so many ways.

      Delete
    2. R.T.,

      I have no problem with people who voluntarily restrict their diet in any way.

      What irritates me is that they seldom, if ever, grant me the same freedom to make my own decisions and they insist on forcing me to adopt their own obsessive preferences.

      Delete
    3. Fred, I never understood religious diet rules until someone explained them in a simple way: they enhance the spirit of community (i.e., people share in a singular social convention and a lifestyle). That explanation, by the way, to my mind explains everything I need to know about religions.

      Delete
    4. funny and perceptive comments! sorry, maybe that's the wrong reaction, but i thought both comments delightful, especially the Mencken one. the labyrinthine perambulations never cease to amaze and amuse...

      Delete
    5. R.T.,

      That may be true, but I'm not a member of their community, so they have no right to force their dietary and drinking quirks on me.

      Delete
    6. Mudpuddle,

      Your reactions are appropriate and welcomed. I have come to the conclusion that one reason the human race has survived so far is that the more sensible members have ignored the silly and frequently self-destructive rules promulgated by some idiotic group, be it religious or political or dietary or whatever.

      Delete
  5. the principle problem is population growth. the ratio between the sane and the others is rapidly swinging in the wrong direction...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mudpuddle,

      Read C. M. Kornbluth's satiric short story,"The Marching Morons."

      Delete