morals. Sir W. Ouseley has written a note to something of the same
effect on the fly-leaf of the Bodleian MS. And in two Rubaiyat of
Mons. Nicolas' own Edition Suf and Sufi are both disparagingly named.

No doubt many of these Quatrains seem unaccountable unless mystically
interpreted; but many more as unaccountable unless literally. Were
the Wine spiritual, for instance, how wash the Body with it when dead?
Why make cups of the dead clay to be filled with--"La Divinite," by
some succeeding Mystic? Mons. Nicolas himself is puzzled by some
"bizarres" and "trop Orientales" allusions and images--"d'une
sensualite quelquefois revoltante" indeed--which "les convenances" do
not permit him to translate; but still which the reader cannot but
refer to "La Divinite."<8> No doubt also many of the Quatrains in the
Teheran, as in the Calcutta, Copies, are spurious; such Rubaiyat being
the common form of Epigram in Persia. But this, at best, tells as
much one way as another; nay, the Sufi, who may be considered the
Scholar and Man of Letters in Persia, would be far more likely than
the careless Epicure to interpolate what favours his own view of the
Poet. I observed that very few of the more mystical Quatrains are in
the Bodleian MS., which must be one of the oldest, as dated at Shiraz,
A.H. 865, A.D. 1460. And this, I think, especially distinguishes Omar
(I cannot help calling him by his--no, not Christian--familiar name)
from all other Persian Poets: That, whereas with them the Poet is lost
in his Song, the Man in Allegory and Abstraction; we seem to have the
Man--the Bon-homme--Omar himself, with all his Humours and Passions,
as frankly before us as if we were really at Table with him, after the
Wine had gone round.

<8> A note to Quatrain 234 admits that, however clear the mystical
meaning of such Images must be to Europeans, they are not quoted