The Impact of Power and Ideology on Edward FitzGerald’s Translation of the Rubáiyát: A Postcolonial Approach

  
This paper analyzes the issues raised by the change of ideology and the underlying meanings in five FitzGerald’s translations of Khayyám’s quatrains according to the theories of certain translation scholars such as André Lefevere and Antoine Berman. With regard to the fact that the British translator has given a harmonizing beauty and an epicurean flavor of his own to Khayyám’s Rubáiyát, could it be claimed that translator’s voice is louder than the author’s? From the transcreation point of view, one could wonder whether FitzGerald did maintain the intent, style, tone, and content of the Persian quatrains. Do FitzGerald’s translations evoke the same emotions and does it carry the same implications in English as Khayyám’s Rubáiyát does in Persian. In general, from a postcolonial perspective, FitzGerald’s five English translations could offer interesting and fertile ground for investigating the effects of power relationship between the colonizer and the colonized text during the Victorian age in England. 
  
Keywords: Khayyám, quatrains, English translations, the colonizer, the colonized text.


A Review of the Postcolonial Approach
Before giving a review of a postcolonial survey of related literature published on the issue, one might wonder what the definition of the post-colonial approach is. According to Douglas Robinson, the post-colonial approach is regarded as "part of the interdisciplinary field of cultural theory or cultural studies" which utilizes "anthropology, sociology, gender studies, ethnic studies, literary criticism, history, psychanalysis, political science and philosophy in order to investigate cultural aspects and practices in a given text" (Douglas 13). In fact, the post-colonial approach originates from "a mixed history of responses, mostly British and Indian" to colonial actions performed in twentieth-century and to "unsettled traditional ideas" of certain Western thinkers such as "Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Louis Althusser, Fredric Jameson, Jacques Derrida,Michel Foucault,and Edward Said" (13). For Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin, the word "post-colonial" refers to "all the culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to the present day" (13). Besides, one of the main tools of imperial oppression is "control over language" (13).
With regard to the subject of the related literature about the manipulation of ideology and power on FitzGerald's translation of the Rubáiyát, it must be asserted that a restraint amount of books and articles have addressed this very subject up until today. Particular attention might be given to the publications starting by André Lefevere, one of the theorists of the manipulation school in translation. More precisely, in 2002, in  In her article, Shafiei attempted to investigate the extent of ideological manipulation which has been applied to Khayyám's Rubáiyát by Edward FitzGerald. She also examined the extent of justice which has been done to translation of the philosophical concepts underlying in the Persian quatrains. In June, 2012, Sajedeh Hosseinnia, published her Masters dissertation on the subject of Domestication and Foreignization in FitzGerald's Translation from Persian to English. In her research, Hosseinnia demonstrated the extent of domestication and foreignization applied in FitzGerald's translation according to Venuti's theory. Furthermore, she explained the reason why FitzGerald's work became valuable to the Victorian literature of 19 th century. Last but not least, in 2015, Saeedeh Bisayar published an article about the voice in Khayyam's Rubaiyat and FitzGerald's English Translation. In her article, Bisayar examined the extent of ideological changes that FitzGerald has applied in his translation. Besides, she analyzed the rendition of voice in Khayyám's quatrains according to Barbara Johnstone's theories.

A Postcolonial Analysis of Edward FitzGerald's Translation
Khayyám was born in Nishapur in the Khorasan 2 Province in the first half of the eleventh century and died in the first quarter of the twelfth century (FitzGerald 27). In Iran, he is well-known for his famous treaties in algebra and astronomical contributions. However, in the West, he is known for his quatrains and mainly the concept of seize the day expressed in his poetry. With regard to Omar Khayyám's fame in the West, Mehdi Aminrazavi explains: Omar Khayyam's significance in the West is twofold; first, his Ruba'iyyat (quatrains); second, his scientific works, especially those in the field of mathematics; the latter however has always been overshadowed by his poetry. His Ruba'iyyat became a household name from the 1870s to the 1950s and were discussed by the likes of Mark Twain, Ezra Pound and the public at large. (Aminrazavi 1) According to George F. Maine, each quatrain of Khayyám's Rubáiyát stands as: a separate poem, the epigrammatic expression of a single thought about such subjects as would occur to the mind of a Persian poet-philosopher, and, moreover, one skilled in mathematics and astronomy. The Rubáiyát are the expression of Omar's own life, the fruits of his own experience, and they were not written for publication. (FitzGerald 37) From a postcolonial literary framework of reading, it could be asserted that while going through the translation of the Rubáiyát the reader might assume that Omar Khayyám lived about ten centuries ago. However, his rationale and his attitude towards life were modern in such a way that when his quatrains are read one might consider him as a contemporary figure.
The Rubáiyát has been translated into many different languages all around the globe (quoted in Golshani 2001). However, Edward FitzGerald (31 March 1809-14 June 1884)-the English poet, writer, and translator-was the first to introduce Khayyám's collection of quatrains to the West with his first edition in 1859 (including 75 quatrains). His translation was based mainly on the Ouseley manuscript 3 . This text was "discovered by Cowell 4 among a mass of uncatalogued material in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, in 1856, containing 158 quatrains […]. It dates from 865, i.e. A.D. 1460-61, some 338 years after the death of Omar" (FitzGerald 37-38). With respect to the way in which he translated Khayyám's quatrains, he explains in a letter to his Professor of Persian: "my translation will interest you from its form, and also in many respects in its detail, very unliteral as it is. Many quatrains are mashed together, and something lost, I doubt, of Omar's simplicity, which is a virtue in him. But there it is, such as it is" (FitzGerald 8). The first edition of FitzGerald's translation went unsold. However, as Gordon S. Haight explains, in 1860, a bundle of the anonymous pamphlets was discovered by chance on the penny shelf of a second-hand bookstall named Quaritch in London by two young men, later to become famous as Victorian poets, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Algernon Charles Swinburne (8). Following the appearance of the second edition of the translation, i.e. eight years later, enthusiasm for the Rubáiyát spread so quickly in England that in 1929 the price of a single copy of the pamphlet amounted to 8000 pounds. Haight highlights the fact that FitzGerald himself regarded his version as "not strictly a 'translation' at all, and, as if conscious of this, on the title-page of the subsequent editions changed Translated to the vaguer word Rendered" (8). During his lifetime, FitzGerald kept reworking his translation by increasing the number of quatrains, shifting their order, modifying his lexical choices, and striving for perfection. As already mentioned, he published his translation several times, i.e. in 1868 (including 110 quatrains), in 1872 (including 101 quatrains), in 1879 (including 101 quatrains), and posthumously in 1889 (including 101 quatrains). It is, however, considered that "the best arrangement is the fourth edition" (Palgrave 397).
Lefevere believes that two types of grid strengthen "all forms of writing": a "conceptual grid" and a "textual grid". These grids "drive from the cultural and literary conventions of a given time" (Bassnett & Trivedi 15). Thus, for example, the Persian quatrain which has no precedent in Western literatures may create a sort of reader's resistance when translated into the target language. For this reason, Lefevere argued that "translators need to keep in mind a double set of conceptual and textual grids, in both source and target systems, but points out also that Western cultures 'translate' non-Western cultures into Western categories, imposing their own grids regardless" (15). Besides, according to Lefevere, for Western translators, translating from Greek and Latin has always been considered very prestigious; however, languages such as Persian have been treated differently. He gives the example of Edward FitzGerald who wrote to his Professor of Persian, E. B. Cowell in 1857 by asserting "it is an amusement for me to take what Liberties I like with these Persians, who (as I think) are not Poets enough to frighten one from such excursions, and who really do want a little Art to shape them" (Lefevere 80). In fact, the "little Art" used here by FitzGerald could demonstrate "a liberal dose of Western poetics (the accepted concept of what a poem should be) […]" (6). In addition, according to this translation theorist, FitzGerald considered "Persians inferior to their Victorian English counterparts, a frame of mind that allows him to rewrite them in a way in which he would have never dreamed of rewriting Homer, or Virgil" (6). Proving the power held by FitzGerald in his translation, Edward Heron Allen, in his book FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayam with Their Original Persian Sources, Collated from His Own MSS., and Literally Translated poses the following question: "How far Edward FitzGerald's incomparable poem may be regarded as a translation of the Persian originals, how far as an adaptation and how far as an original work?" (Herron-Allen xi-xii). He continues by asserting: Forty-nine [of FitzGerald's quatrains] are faithful and beautiful paraphrases of single quatrains to be found in the Ouseley (i.e., Bodleian) or Calcutta MSS., or both. Forty-four are traceable to more than one quatraiņ while others have their origin in verses by Ḥāfeẓ (two quatrains) and 'Aṭṭār (two quatrains). Three (dropped after the second edition) appear to be FitzGerald's original work and to have no source in Persian. (1899) By referring to Heron Allen's statement above, "overall, scholarship agrees that the governing transformation that FitzGerald wrought was unification of Khayyám's disparate quatrains" (Drury 148). Thus, it could be argued that FitzGerald's voice, as an expression of power and personal vision of a colonialist, stands between the Western reader and the Persian original text. Whatever the beauty or the accurate meaning of Khayyám's text, for Persian readers, FitzGerald has given it a harmonizing beauty and an epicurean flavor of his own in order to render it more acceptable to the values and tastes of the Victorian era. In fact, it could be argued that FitzGerald hold colonialist attitudes thus; via changing the form and the meaning of quatrains; he domesticated the Persian quatrains for the Victorian audience. However, one may wonder what the criteria for a 19 th literary work (either an original or a translation) were to be labelled as Victorian. According to Deirdre David, the prominence of sensation and the fantastic in Victorian era signifies "forms of the personal or political unconscious, the return of the repressed in which subjugated, silenced, or invisible social groups or impulses rise up against the social institutions or forces which seek to deny or contain them" (David 212). In other terms, the literature of the fantastic in Victorian era concerns "all that is not said, all that is unsayable, through realistic forms" (194). The Victorian fantastic literature opposes taboo and agrees "with excess, with the irrational, non-rational or supernatural, and with carnival or universal" (194).
Regardless of the deformation of the content of the Persian quatrains, it must be asserted that FitzGerald's translation inspired a new vague of hybridity among the Victorian literary works. In this regard, Annemarie Drury believes that thanks to FitzGerald's translation, the Rubáiyát started to have a great significance among the Victorian poets such as Tennyson and Browning (Drury 168). Norman Page explains further that by following the same themes expressed in FitzGerald's translation, Tennyson composed a poem entitled In Memoriam: "FitzGerald's own masterpiece is, less overtly, itself the commemoration of an intense friendship and the expression of a sense of loss, and…in some respects its origins curiously resemble the ones of Tennyson's poem" (168). In addition, the British poet's translation had also a great impact on Browning writings; in a way that his poem of Rabbi ben Ezra has included the Khayyámian images of potter and clay. Swinburne also followed FitzGerald's novelty of stanza-form of the Rubáiyát in his quatrains entitled Laus Veneris. On the whole, it could be argued that FitzGerald's translation created "a poetics of disguise" in late Victorian poetry (168).
Nonetheless, from a postcolonial standpoint, it might be argued that "[…] the Rubáiyát reflects the hubris of imperial Britain, reinforcing imperialist prejudices and bolstering imperialist aims" (Drury 152). In other terms, in his translations, FitzGerald's voice is louder than the author's because it seems that he felt superior to the Persian poet. Thus, in this context, "translation becomes FitzGerald's means towards an Orientalist end" (153). It may also be suggested that FitzGerald, as a Victorian colonizer, desired to make a poem of his own out of Khayyám's quatrains due to his negative attitudes towards the Persians. As Douglas suggests: "Like some conqueror, he marched the original text, a captive, into his native language" (Douglas 55). In other words, as the later statement of Tymoczko confirms, FitzGerald may have set out to recreate a new collection of quatrains in English, since he believed that the English literature and civilization is nobler than the Persian literature and civilization: "[…] through language the translator creates the source culture for the receptor audience" (Tymoczko 182). Besides, in this regard, Drury explains: FitzGerald was attracted by the idea of genuine imitation being achieved by an accidental imitator, a writer who hasn't set imitation as a primary goal. Recognizing his own limits as a translator, and convinced of the severe limitations of translation as an enterprise, he nurtured a vision of good translation as imperfect re-creation that was governed largely by fortune. He sought to achieve such re-creation in the Rubáiyát, and the liberties he took in translation served this ideal. (Drury 153) Indeed, there is proof of this in free and different variants of the earlier (1859) and later (1868) versions. As an analysis on a micro-level, FitzGerald's amended form of the opening stanza of the 1868 version could be compared with his first edition of 1859. The following comparison will demonstrate the extent of liberty FitzGerald allowed to himself while rendering the richly-colored similes and metaphors of Khayyámian quatrains into English. In addition, in order to better comprehend the dissimilarity between FitzGerald's translations and the source text, a literal translation of the Persian quatrain is provided. After observing a high extent of the lexical and linguistic variants in Table I, it could be asserted that FitzGerald's rendering is an inspired paraphrase rather than a translation. For instance, in the first stanza of 1859, he used morning for the Persian literal equivalent of sun. In the second edition, he decided to amend it by replacing the word sun with morning and maintains this choice of lexis throughout the later editions. By following his translation, it can be observed that he has distorted the content of the rest of the quatrain by ignoring a great deal of the metaphorical images, such as Key khosro, the Persian king who symbolizes a mythical and cultural concept in Persian literature. This is important, because by using the image of Key khosro, Khayyám was attempting to emphasize "the world's transience", since Key khosro's empire had completely ended (Seyed-Gohrab 16). The English poet has also added words such as Awake, bowl, night, stone, stars, put, flight, Lo, Hunter, East, caught, Sultan, Turret, Noose, light, and afterwards replaced them in the next edition with Eastern Height, chased, session, Night, Field of Heaven, ascending, strikes, Shaft of light. Further observation reveals that he even diversified the poetic images of his own translation in the second edition and continued to manipulate the strange similes until his last translation. Table II below casts light on FitzGerald's liberal selection of lexical equivalents for the same Persian quatrain in the third and fifth versions. The Sultan's Turret with a Shaft of Light.

(FitzGerald 137)
In no single one of these English translations there is an implication of the key signifiers of the original Persian quatrain under study, i.e. day, bird, Wine, Cup, and drink. In fact, these key signifiers build an underlying network of signification. Figure I demonstrates the underlying network of signification mentioned in the previous lines.

Figure I.
Antoine Berman believes that a literary work "contains a hidden dimension, an 'underlying' text, where certain signifiers correspond and link up, forming all sorts of networks beneath the 'surface' of the text itself-the manifest text, presented for reading" (Venuti 248). Thus, each key signifier in the discussed network suggests a metaphorical meaning. Day stands for time. Bird is likened to the announcement of the coming of a new day. Wine stands for life, to emphasize the fact that life is short and fleeting. Cup is compared to the body of mankind which includes the life contained within. And finally, drink stands for the passage of time. In fact, the passage of time reduces the life of a person who approaches death. In Islam, it is believed that the human being was created from clay and water. Therefore, Khayyám, as a mystic poet, applies the analogy of wine and cup-repeated frequently throughout his quatrains-in order to liken life to wine and the cup to a human's body. As Ali Asghar Seyed-Gohrab declares "this is a cliché metaphor in Islamic mysticism, used by mystics to depict man's craving for union with the Beloved" (Seyed-Gohrab 15). Thus, Khayyám invites his readers not to grieve over the past but to seize the new day which brings each person one day closer to the craved for holy union. Above all, the network of signification under discussion emphasizes the ephemeral nature of the world. According to Seyed-Gohrab, in his philosophy Khayyám follows the Aristotelian theory of "generation and corruption". That is to say, everything (including human beings) in this world follows a distinct cycle of "life and decay" (16). For this reason, the key signifiers used by the Persian poet mostly refer to the images of generation vs. corruption.
As another example of the difference in the choice of lexis used by the English translator, attention could be drawn to the way the word awake is used throughout the five editions. In the first edition, the word Awake is applied. In the second edition, it is reduced to Ake. In the third and fourth editions, the word under study becomes Wake. And finally, similarly to the second edition, in the fifth version, FitzGerald again chooses the word Ake. Besides, in the Persian text, Khayyám plays a great deal with the words. In this quatrain, for instance, the Persian poet repeats three times the verb afkandan which may be translated literally in English by the verb to cast, and Khayyám makes use of a pun to intensify his poetic style. In fact, in the first stanza, the verb afkandan means to throw. In the second stanza, it signifies to pour. And, in the fourth stanza, it denotes to broadcast. However, in all five English translations this pun is lost. Figure II will demonstrate better the extent of the additions of lexemes throughout FitzGerald's five translations.  compared with the original text, it seems that FitzGerald has set out to rewrite the Rubáiyát according to his own inspiration.
As another example of power manipulation, it could be referred to the translation of another quatrain which is common among the five translations. The following table presents the Persian quatrain and the translations in the first and third editions. It must be added that the quatrain under discussion in the second, fourth, and fifth editions has the same form as the translation in the third version.

You
were-TO-MORROW you shall not be less.

(FitzGerald 137)
As it could be seen the variations start from the second stanza in which FitzGerald deleted the metaphoric image of ‫رخی‬ ‫ماه‬ /mʌh rʊkhɪ/ 6 from the Persian quatrain. The content and the form of the translation that he presented for the second stanza is completely different from Khayyám's quatrain. However, as it could be observed, in the first edition he put the Nothing all things and in the third edition, he changed it to what All begins. In the third stanza of the first stanza, the British translator added words of fancy, Thou art, and Thou art but what. In the third edition, he replaced the mentioned equivalents by other words and phrases: Think, you are TO-DAY what YESTERDAY. Last but not least, in the fourth stanza, the form and the content are also modulated. With regard to the issue of variation in the British translator's rendition, it must be asserted that the end of the fourth stanza in the first edition is changed in comparison to the third edition. The word Thou is replaced by you in the third edition. Shalt is changed to were. And the phrase of be Nothing-Thou shalt is replaced by were-TOMORROW you shall. From the analysis of FitzGerald's translations, it could be assumed that via the change of the form of the quatrain, the underlying significance of it is also deformed.
Berman, in his book La Traduction et la Lettre ou l'Auberge du Lointain, asserts that the destruction of the original form is usually carried out for the only purpose of keeping "the meaning" or "the beautiful form" (Venuti 282). Berman's statement evokes, indeed, the famous classical dichotomy of sense/content on the one hand and form/style on the other hand. Concerning the translation of FitzGerald, in most cases, he preferred form over sense. Due to the dominant postcolonial attitudes of his time, he marginalized the Persian text by paying ultimate attention to the English language and literature. Thus, it could be argued that his rendering is a free translation. In addition, by evoking Berman's eighth deforming tendency known as the destruction of underlying networks of signification, it could be asserted that the various additions and deletions of lexemes shown in figures I and II manifest the extent of the ideological manipulation and deformation of the underlying networks of the key signifiers of the Rubáiyát. In fact, each quatrain could be considered as a set of linguistic units carrying a strong ideological and intercultural component of elements which has been transferred quite differently in the English language and literature. As a consequence, the image created in the English reader's mind upon reading the Rubáiyát is quite different from that of the Iranian reader's mind. According to a postcolonial analysis, FitzGerald as a colonialist rewriter deformed and recreated a new image of Khayyám's work in order to make it more compatible for his Victorian readers.
With regard to the notion of power in translation, Basil Hatim and Jeremy Munday hold that one of the senses of power includes the usage of language in order to "include" or "exclude" readers, systems of values, sets of beliefs or a culture (Hatim & Munday 93). Besides, translators could apply their absolute "power" to exclude an author directly and consciously. This usually happens via translation methods known as "free translation, heavy glossing, gisting or compensation". By the same token, certain target conventions may also turn the translation into an ideological weapon in order to exclude the author through certain methods such as omission or normalization under the cliché excuses of "sustaining fluency" and/or "combating boredom" (95). Thus, it could be claimed that the bulk of Persian quatrains translated into English by FitzGerald tends to exclude the Persian poet's networks of key signifiers, through which he originally attempted to communicate his philosophical ideas. As a result, it might be argued that FitzGerald's translation is a classic example of the ideological domination of a Victorian translator through the power of language. In other words, FitzGerald's translation is a sign of the Victorian attitude towards the Eastern classics during the 19 th century. In this context, his text turns out to be a veiled ideological battlefield where the philosophical effects and Islamic mystical implications of the source text are removed. It could also be suggested that FitzGerald's translation is a covert attempt to dominate the colonized subject within the framework of Western cultural and ideological values.

Conclusion
As stated earlier, FitzGerald attempted to create the same form of stanza of Persian quatrains in his translations. However, as the first translator, he did not completely succeed in conveying Khayyám's subjectivity and as a result the significance of the Rubáiyát is partly distorted or changed into a new Victorian literary creation. In other terms, throughout his five translations, he kept modifying the number of quatrains and diversifying the selected images for Persian key signifiers. Therefore, the underlying network of signification of the Persian text is manipulated and deformed in FitzGerald's renditions. Since FitzGerald learned Persian through self-study and maintained negative attitudes towards this Indo-European language, from his very first edition, he somehow ignored the historical and ideological contexts in which the Persian text was created. Thus, the position of power and authority which FitzGerald held towards Khayyám's text is the most obvious. In other words, FitzGerald's five translations demonstrate the relation of "stronger versus weaker, of free versus confined, of owner or master versus servant or slave" (Hermans 109).
FitzGerald mostly considered the literal meaning of the key signifiers in his translations. As an example, he considered the mystic image of wine used by Muslim poets as everyday wine which is drunk ordinarily. Though FitzGerald's adaptation has drawn significant attention among the Western audience, to some extent it can be considered unsuccessful in terms of communicating the textual features of the Rubáiyát, especially the cultural, ideological, philosophical and historical elements. Indeed, FitzGerald as a Victorian poet gives himself permission to instill "the hectic touch of European theology" and social Victorian ideology into Khayyám's philosophical and mystical set of beliefs (FitzGerald 19). Certain critics have referred to his translations as the Rubáiyát of FitzOmar. This labeling implies the extent of freedom that FitzGerald granted himself when domesticating Khayyám's Persian quatrains. As an imperialist poet, FitzGerald felt superior to Khayyám. Therefore, it could be concluded that the English translator's vision and his colonialist set of values are imposed on his five translations of the Rubáiyát. Taking everything into consideration, one may wonder how the Western reader might make an effort to become acquainted with the real metaphorical images of Omar Khayyám's poetry and perceive his true ideology about God, life and human existence via his Rubáiyát. May be, the English translation of John Arthur Arberry-published in 1949-or the French translation of Gilbert Lazard-published in 1997-could bridge the gap between the Western reader and Khayyám's Ideology.