We have now come to the end of the thirteenth century authorities, and before passing on to those of a later date we Character of 'Umar as it appears in thirteenth-century writings. may note that these earlier records consistently represent 'Umar Khayyám as essentially a philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician, and that, so far from his being represented as a mystic, he is denounced by the Ṣúfí Najmu'd-Dín Rází as the arch-freethinker of his time, while al-Qifṭí speaks of the later Ṣúfís being deceived by the outward appearance of some of his words and adapting them to their own ideas.
Our one fourteenth-century authority of weight is the
Jámi'u't-Tawáríkh of Rashídu'd-Dín Faḍul'lláh, a great history
The Jámí'u'tTawáríkh.
of the Mongols, including a section on General
History, composed in the first quarter of the
fourteenth century, and still, unfortunately, in
spite of its vast importance, unpublished.
*
In this book we
first find what is now generally known as the Story of the
Three Friends, already discussed on pp. 190-193 supra. Part
of this I published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for
April, 1899 (pp. 409-411), in a short article entitled ??et more
Light on 'Umar Khayyám, and, since this is the oldest form of a
legend which has attracted a good deal of attention amongst
the admirers of the Astronomer-Poet and his interpreter Fitz-
“Now the cause of the enmity and mistrust which existed between the Nidhámu'l-Mulk and Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáḥ was that they and 'Umar Khayyám were at school together in Níshápúr, and there, in boyish fashion, conceived for one another a devoted friendship which culminated in their partaking of each other's blood and registering a solemn vow that whichever of them should attain to high rank and lofty degree should protect and help the others.
“Now it happened, by a train of circumstances fully set forth in the History of the House of Seljúq, that the Nidhámu'l-Mulk attained to the position of Prime Minister. 'Umar Khayyám waited upon him and reminded him of the vows and covenants of their boyish days. The Nidhámu'l-Mulk, recognising these old claims, said, ‘I give thee the government of Níshápúr and its dependencies.’ But 'Umar, who was a great man, and withal a philosopher and a man of sense, replied, ‘I have no desire to administer a province or to exercise authority over the people. Rather assign to me a stipend or pension.’ So the Nidhámu'l-Mulk assigned him an allowance of ten thousand dínárs from the treasury of Níshápúr, to be paid over to him annually without deduction or tax.”
The narrative continues with the arrival of Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbáh to claim his share of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk's favours, and describes how he refuses the government of Ray or Iṣfahán, and will be satisfied with nothing less than a high post at Court, which position he abuses by trying to compass the downfall of his benefactor, whom he hopes to succeed as Prime Minister. How he failed in his attempt, was covered with disgrace, and, fleeing from Khurásán, made his way to Iṣfahán and thence to the Court of the Fáṭimid Caliph al-Mustanṣir at Cairo, where he espoused the cause of Nizár, and returned to Persia to carry on the “New Propaganda” in his name, are matters which have been already discussed in the last chapter, and will be found set forth with many embellishments in the Ta'ríkh-i-Guzída (ed. and trans. Gantin, pp. 486-497), Dawlatsháh's Memoirs (pp. 138-141 of my edition) and other later writers.
The next notice of 'Umar Khayyám cited by Zhukovski is from the Firdawsu't-Tawáríkh, or “Paradise of Histories,”
Firdawsu'tTawáríkh. composed about A.D. 1405-6. This quotes two of his quatrains, describes a discussion between him and Abu'l-Ḥasan al-Bayhaqí (in which the latter took by far the greater part) as to the meaning of an Arabic verse in the Ḥamása, and repeats the story of his death, which essentially agrees with that given by Shahrazúrí in the Nuzhatu'l-Arwáḥ.The last notice which Zhukovski gives is from a very modern work, the Ta'ríkh-i-Alfí, or “Millennial History,”
Ta'ríkh-i-Alfí. so called because it was meant to be carried down to the year A.H. 1000 (= A.D. 1591-92), though it actually ends with the year A.H. 997. This account for the most part reproduces the statements of Shahrazúrí in an abridged form, but ends with the following curious passage:—“It appears from numerous books that he (i.e., 'Umar Khayyám) held the doctrine of Metempsychosis. It is related that there was in Níshápúr an old College, for the repairing of which donkeys were bringing bricks. One day, while the Sage (Ḥakím, i.e., 'Umar) was walking with a group of students, one of the donkeys would on no account enter (the College). When 'Umar saw this, he smiled, went up to the donkey, and extemporised [the following quatrain]:—
Ay rafta, wa báz ámada “Bal hum” gashta,
Nám-at zi mayán-i-nám-há gum gashta,
Nákhun hama jam' ámada, u sum gashta
Rísh uz pas-i-kún dar amáda dum gashta.“O lost and now returned ‘yet more astray,’ *
Thy name from men's remembrance passed away,
Thy nails have now combined to form thy hoofs,
Thy tail's a beard turned round the other way!”
The donkey then entered, and they asked 'Umar the reason of this. He replied, ‘The spirit which has now attached itself to the body of this ass [formerly] inhabited the body of a lecturer in this college, therefore it would not come in until now, when, perceiving that its colleagues had recognised it, it was obliged to step inside.’”
It is impossible here to enumerate all the late accounts of 'Umar Khayyám, many of which contain anecdotes obviously invented to explain the production of certain quatrains. He is strangely ignored by the great biographer Ibn Khallikán, and by Ibn Shákir, who strove in his Fawátu'l-Wafayát to supply the omissions of his predecessor. Ḥájji Khalífa, the great Turkish bibliographer, mentions him three times (ii, 584; iii, 570; vi, 273), once in connection with the science of Algebra, once in connection with Maliksháh's reformed Calendar, and once as contemporary with another author whom he is discussing, but omits to mention the year of his death, which was therefore presumably unknown to him. The date ordinarily given for his decease * is A.H. 517 (= A.D. 1123-24), but I cannot find any strong authority for it. It is, however, certain from the Chahár Maqála that he died between A.D. 1115 and 1135, and “some years” before the latter date, and that his father's name was Ibráhím. Although described as indolent and averse from writing or teaching, Ross * has compiled a list of ten books (including the Persian quatrains, and the Zíj-i-Maliksháhí, for which he was only in part responsible) ascribed to him by various authorities. Most of these were scientific or philosophical treatises in Arabic, one of which, his Treatise on Algebra, was edited by Woepcke with a French translation in 1851, while another, containing some observations on Euclid's definitions, exists in manuscript in the Leyden Library.
It is, of course, in the Quatrains that the interest of most
readers centres, but with the appalling mass of literature which
“Omarian”
literature.
the popularity of FitzGerald's rendering has produced
in Europe and America it is quite impossible
to deal in a book like the present. This literature
contains some of the best and some of the worst literary
work which I have ever seen, and the judicious bibliography
which forms Appendix xlix (pp. 438-594) of Nathan
Haskell Dole's beautiful “Multi-variorum edition” (Boston
and London, 1898) should suffice to satisfy the most insatiable
“Omarian,” though at the end the diligent compiler is fain to
admit (p. 594) that “certainly all the extant references to
Omar in all languages would require a lifetime [to elucidate],
and make a library in itself.” With every desire for brevity,
however, we must add a few more words on Zhukovski's
researches as to the “wandering quatrains” (i.e., quatrains
commonly attributed to 'Umar, but ascribed on older and
better authority to other poets), and Heron Allen's careful
and exhaustive analysis of the relation existing between Fitz-