The following is the review of Pandit Narayana Das’ “Rubaiyat” of Omar Khaiayam, by ‘The Hyderabad Bulletin’ published as an editorial in its issue of January 16, 1937. The newspaper obviously felt that the work merited a review in the form of an editorial.
A Monument Of Scholarship
 |
| Pandit Narayana Das' Statue on Visakhapatnam Beach |
There are, of course dozens of translations of the immortal “Rubaiyat”, the most popular and probably the best known being that of Edward Fitzgerald. Pandit Narayana Das, who frankly expresses the opinion that Fitzgerald’s work is not a literal translation, has gone back to the original Persian in order that the letter and the spirit of Omar Khaiyam may not be missed.
In these degenerate days when scholarship has fallen on evil times, it is incredible to learn that a Hindu, with Telugu as his mother tongue, should have been so filled with admiration for a Persian poet that, after he had passed his sixtieth year, he took the trouble to master so alien a language, and translate the masterpiece not only into Telugu but into another classical language, Sanskrit.
We find in the book that while Fitzgerald’s translation is rendered into Sanskrit and into Telugu of the Kandam metre, the hardest perhaps in the Telugu prosody, Omar Khaiyam’s original text is again translated into Giti and the Bhujangi metres.
We are certainly unaware of any recent instance in India where so much learning has been brought to bear on what is no less certainly a labour of love, for it is evident that there are few persons familiar with the Sanskrit language who are anxious to have a rendering of the Persian original.
Pandit Narayandas’s erudition is enhanced by the fact that even in using his own mother tongue, he has selected what is called Atchha-Telugu, a language that only a handful can understand. The work therefore is not intended for the masses, and the learned author expects no profits out of his scholarship.
But literature transcends the limitation of language, age and country, and it is most gratifying that a Telugu writer of the twentieth century should have paid the most splendid tribute to a Persian Poet of the twelfth century. He has added a most copious glossary at the end of the book to facilitate an appreciation of the original, its translation by Fitzgerald, and the author’s own translation into Sanskrit and Telugu.
In inviting the attention of H.E.H. the Nizam’s Government to the Pandit’s work, we trust that, in consonance with their liberal support of classical scholarship; they will extend their patronage to the Pandit, and thus bring about a sympathetic understanding and interpretation between the two classical languages.
The Hyderabad Bulletin.
16-1-1937.
16-1-1937.
(Emphasis added)
