Omar Khayyám

← Encyclopedia

Two men answer to the name Omar Khayyám, and they have almost nothing in common. One is a mathematician and astronomer of medieval Iran who reformed a calendar and pushed the solution of cubic equations further than anyone before him; the other is a wistful tavern-philosopher of agnostic melancholy, beloved across the English-speaking world, who was assembled out of Persian fragments seven centuries after the first man died, in a language he never spoke. The distance between them is the central fact of his afterlife. In the East he was, and largely remains, a man of science with a sideline in epigram. In the West he is the Rubáiyát and little else — a book most of its admirers met not in Persian but in Edward FitzGerald’s loose 1859 rendering.

Statue of Omar Khayyam in the tomb complex at Nishapur, his birthplace and burial place — photograph via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The man of science

The historical figure is solidly attested, with a name that records a trade: Ghiyāth al-Dīn Abū al-Fatḥ ʿUmar ibn Ibrāhīm al-Nīshābūrī al-Khayyāmī, born at Nishapur in 1048 and dead there in 1131, khayyām meaning tent-maker, probably an inherited craft-name. The earliest near-contemporary witness, the historian Ẓahīr al-Dīn al-Bayhaqī, who met him at Nishapur as a young man, remembered a prodigious memory and a sharp, forbidding temper as readily as any learning. To his own century he was a geometer, an astronomer, a philosopher in the line of Avicenna — not a poet.

Imagined portrait of Khayyam as scholar and astronomer — drawing by A. Venediktov, via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

His mathematics was the most original part of him. Around 1070, working at Samarkand under the protection of the jurist Abū Ṭāhir, he wrote the Treatise on Demonstration of Problems of Algebra (Risāla fī’l-barāhīn ʿalā masāʾil al-jabr wa’l-muqābala), which gave the first complete classification of cubic equations and solved them geometrically by intersecting conic sections — parabolas, hyperbolas, and circles whose crossings located the roots. He stated plainly that the general cubic requires conics and cannot be reached by ruler and compass alone, an assertion not formally proved until the nineteenth century, some seven hundred years later. He had reached the edge of what algebra could do without symbolic notation, and he knew it; he hoped a later age would find the arithmetic solution that eluded him, as Sharaf al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī and, far later, the Italian algebraists eventually did.

He pressed against another frontier in his commentary on Euclid, the Explanation of the Difficulties in the Postulates of Euclid (Risāla fī sharḥ mā ashkala min muṣādarāt kitāb Uqlīdis). Dissatisfied with the parallel postulate, he tried to derive it from axioms he credited to Aristotle, and in doing so constructed and analyzed the four-sided figure later named for the eighteenth-century Jesuit Girolamo Saccheri, weighing the cases in which its summit angles are right, obtuse, or acute. He did not mean to overthrow Euclid; he meant to secure him. But in taking the acute and obtuse cases seriously he opened, without naming them, the doors that nineteenth-century geometers would walk through into non-Euclidean space. The work belongs to the architecture of knowledge more than to any school.

The astronomy made him a public man. In 1079 he led the team of astronomers that Sultan Malik-Shāh and his vizier Niẓām al-Mulk commissioned to reform the Persian calendar, very likely at the observatory at Isfahan, then the Seljuk capital. The resulting Jalālī calendar fixed the length of the solar year with an error on the order of a day in several thousand years — by some reckonings finer than the Gregorian reform that reached Europe five centuries afterward — and it remains the backbone of the Iranian calendar to this day. The famous medieval tale that bound him in a boyhood pact with Niẓām al-Mulk and with Ḥasan-i Ṣabbāḥ, the future founder of the Nizārī Ismāʿīlīs, sworn schoolfellows under one master at Nishapur, is folklore; the chronology will not hold, and modern historians read it as legend, though the real tie between Khayyám and the vizier’s court is documented. After Malik-Shāh’s death, with his patronage gone and his orthodoxy under suspicion, Khayyám made the pilgrimage to Mecca around 1092 — a journey some contemporaries read as a man clearing his name.

The philosopher

The philosophical essays are the bridge between the scientist and the poet, and they are explicit about their lineage. In On Being and Necessity (Risāla fī’l-kawn wa’l-taklīf) Khayyám names Avicenna outright as his teacher, the master of all who came before, and argues in the Avicennan idiom: God as the Necessary Existence, the ordered descent of existents, causality, and the impossibility of an infinite regress of causes — the standard furniture of Islamic Neoplatonism as the falāsifa received it from Avicenna and al-Fārābī. Other treatises survive on universals, on existence, and on the vexed knot of determinism and theodicy — the necessity of contradiction in the world, the soul, and the reach of free will under a God who is both omniscient and just. This was hazardous ground. Khayyám wrote his Peripatetic philosophy at exactly the moment when rationalist falsafa was under sustained attack from orthodox jurists — the generation of al-Ghazālī, whose critique would reshape the standing of philosophy in Islam — and he found himself having to defend the very title of philosopher against the charge that it meant unbelief.

Here the documentary record turns ambiguous in a way that matters for everything downstream. The biographers preserve a divided portrait. Al-Zamakhsharī called him the philosopher of the world. But al-Qiftī, writing in the thirteenth century, recorded that his verses carried heterodox ideas — likening them to serpents biting at the sacred law — and reported that contemporaries pressed charges of impiety against him. Whether the prickly, freethinking sage of the biographies actually composed the wine-soaked quatrains, or whether the quatrains’ later notoriety reshaped the memory of the man, is precisely the problem that the poetry poses.

The harder case: the quatrains

The quatrain, or rubāʿī, was one of the most common and most anonymous forms in Persian — four lines, a single turn of thought, easily memorized, easily detached from any author and reattached to a more famous one. Verses drifted under celebrated names for centuries, and Khayyám’s name attracted them as a magnet attracts filings. The oldest sources credit him with only a handful; the manuscripts swell long after his death until, in the late collections, more than a thousand quatrains travel under his name. No two scholars agree on which — if any — are securely his. Various authenticity tests, weighing diction, meter, and the witness of early anthologies, have pared the corpus to a few hundred and then to roughly a hundred; Ali Dashti, in his close study of 1971, allowed that only some three dozen carry a real likelihood of being Khayyám’s own. The figure at the center of the Rubáiyát, in other words, may be the author of nearly all of it, or of almost none.

What the surviving quatrains say, taken at face value, is bracing. The origins and ends of things are hidden; no traveler returns from the country beyond death to report what is there; the cup in hand is more certain than any promise made by a preacher; the potter and the pot, the rose and the dust, turn into one another without consolation. They read, in places, like a refusal of religious comfort set down by a man who knew the theology well enough to decline it on its own terms — the disabused candor of a geometer who had measured the heavens and found no message written there.

That face-value reading is exactly what is contested, and the contest runs deep. One long interpretive tradition, strong among readers schooled in Sufism, takes the wine and the tavern as the standing vocabulary of Persian poetic mysticism: wine is the ecstasy of divine love, the tavern is the gathering of seekers, the cupbearer is the beloved who is God, and intoxication is the annihilation of the self in the One. On that reading Khayyám is an initiate speaking in code, kin to Rumi and to ʿAṭṭār of Nishapur — and the Islamic Sufi lexicon does in fact license every image in the poems. The other tradition, dominant in much of modern Western reception and not without Eastern partisans, hears no code at all but a genuine skeptic: an Epicurean of the moment, a near-unbeliever whose doubt is meant literally, whose wine is wine. The two readings cannot both be the last word, and the texts sustain them both; the same line turns devotional or defiant according to what the reader carries to it, which is part of why the debate has never closed. The wistful, unresolved doubt that the English reader hears — the note nearest to modern agnosticism — sits exactly on the seam between the two. There is, in the end, no neutral place from which to overhear the man behind the verses; there are only the verses, and the rival ears.

ʿAṭṭār, not the same Nishapur

A word of caution the manuscripts themselves invite: Khayyám shares his city with another, wholly distinct figure of Persian letters, ʿAṭṭār of Nishapur, the Sufi poet of the Conference of the Birds. The two are sometimes blurred by the common toponym and by the gravitational pull of mysticism on every Persian poet’s reputation, but they are different men of different generations and different temper — and the confusion is itself a small instance of how readily a name and a tradition draw verses toward themselves.

Scholarship and the textual record

The modern study of Khayyám runs on two separate tracks that rarely meet, mirroring the split in the man. On the scientific side stand the editions and analyses of the algebra, the Euclid commentary, and the calendar work; on the literary side, the long and inconclusive labor of sifting the quatrains. The fullest single attempt to hold both together in English is Mehdi Aminrazavi’s The Wine of Wisdom: The Life, Poetry and Philosophy of Omar Khayyam (Oxford: Oneworld, 2005), which surveys the science, the philosophical treatises, and the contested poetry without forcing the skeptic and the Sufi into a single verdict; a synthesis of his and George Saliba’s work informs the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Umar Khayyam. The decisive twentieth-century intervention on authenticity is Ali Dashti’s In Search of Omar Khayyam (trans. L. P. Elwell-Sutton, London: Allen & Unwin, 1971), which reduced the secure corpus to a handful and set the terms of the debate that followed. The biographical and textual groundwork — the medieval witnesses, the Bodleian Ouseley manuscript of 1460–61 that FitzGerald drew on, the poetry’s slow accretion — is laid out in the Encyclopaedia Iranica’s multi-part article on Omar Khayyam, whose separate fascicles on his life, his poetry, his mathematics, and his Western impact remain the standard reference. The earliest dated manuscript of the quatrains is centuries younger than Khayyám himself, which is why every edition is also, unavoidably, an argument.

FitzGerald’s invention

The figure who reached the widest audience is, in large measure, FitzGerald’s own making. Edward FitzGerald (1809–1883) learned Persian late and informally from the Cambridge orientalist Edward Cowell, who in 1856 handed him a transcript of that fifteenth-century Bodleian manuscript; from it, and from a Calcutta copy, FitzGerald built not a translation but what he himself half-named a transmogrification — a free recombination, reordering, and reshaping of selected quatrains into a single English poem with an arc the Persian originals never had, running from a sunrise of skeptical appetite to a dusk of resignation. He defended the liberty in his own terms, preferring, as he put it, a live sparrow to a stuffed eagle. He cast Khayyám, in his prefatory essay, as a materialist Epicurean — and it was that English Khayyám, melancholy and unbelieving, whom the West embraced.

Edward FitzGerald (1809–1883), whose 1859 free rendering created the English Khayyam — photograph via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

The book very nearly vanished first. The anonymous first edition, Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, the Astronomer-Poet of Persia, published by Bernard Quaritch in 1859 at a shilling, did not sell, and its remainders were tipped into the penny box. There the Celtic scholar Whitley Stokes found copies and passed one to Dante Gabriel Rossetti, and through the Pre-Raphaelite and literary circle — Rossetti, Swinburne, Morris, Burne-Jones, Ruskin, the Brownings — the poem caught and spread, crossing to America before the decade was out. FitzGerald enlarged and revised it through editions of 1868, 1872, and 1879, and by the end of the century it was a fixture of the Victorian and Edwardian shelf, with Omar Khayyám clubs founded in its honor and the quatrains as quotable as any verse in English: the loaf of bread and the flask of wine beneath the bough, the moving finger that writes and moves on and that no piety nor tears can lure back to cancel half a line.

“The Moving Finger writes” — Edmund J. Sullivan’s illustration for quatrain 51 of FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat (1913), via Wikimedia Commons (public domain)

FitzGerald’s instinct for Persian verse-music carried into his other labor as well — his rendering of ʿAṭṭār’s Manṭiq al-Ṭayr as the Bird-Parliament shows the same hand reshaping Persian originals for an English ear.

So the two reputations stand side by side and refuse to merge. In Nishapur and the libraries of the Islamic world, Khayyám is the geometer who tamed the cubic and the astronomer whose year keeps better time than Rome’s, his name carried by treatises that bear his hand and need no other attribution. In the West he is a voice of wine and dust and the silence overhead, carried by a poem whose oldest manuscript postdates its supposed author by three centuries and whose English maker openly recast it into something of his own. One Khayyám wrote his own proofs; the other was written, in a fifteenth-century hand and again in a Victorian one, into the figure the West repeats. The geometry is signed. The quatrains travel under a borrowed name, and the West learned to love them in a voice — FitzGerald’s — that was never quite his.

→ In the library: FitzGerald — Bird-Parliament (ʿAttār's Manṭiq al-Ṭayr, 1889)

→ Related: Islam · Knowledge · Free Will · Soul · Avicenna · Al Farabi · Al Ghazali · Islamic Neoplatonism · Sufism · Islamic Sufism · Persian Poetic Mysticism · Attar Of Nishapur · Rumi · Mysticism · Agnosticism