With regard to the present translation. The original Rubaiyat (as, missing an Arabic guttural, these _Tetrastichs_ are more musically called) are independent stanzas, consisting each of four lines of equal, though varied, prosody; sometimes _all_ rhyming, but oftener (as here imitated) the third line a blank. Somewhat as in the Greek alcaic, where the penultimate line seems to lift and suspend the wave that falls over in the last. As usual with such kind of Oriental verse, the Rubaiyat follow one another according to alphabetic rhyme--a strange succession of grave and gay. Those here selected are strung into something of an eclogue, with perhaps a less than equal proportion of the «Drink and make-merry» which (genuine or not) recurs over-frequently in the original. Either way the result is sad enough: saddest perhaps when most ostentatiously merry: more apt to move sorrow than anger toward the old Tentmaker, who, after vainly endeavouring to unshackle his steps from destiny, and to catch some authentic glimpse of TO-MORROW, fell back upon TO-DAY (which has outlasted so many TO-MORROWS!) as the only ground he had got to stand upon, however momentarily slipping from under his feet. While the second Edition of this version of Omar was preparing, M. Nicolas, French Consul at Resht, published a very careful and very good edition of the text, from a lithograph copy at Teheran, comprising 464 Rubaiyat, with translation and notes of his own. M. Nicolas, whose edition has reminded me of several things, and instructed me in others, does not consider Omar to be the material Epicurean that I have literally taken him for, but a Mystic, shadowing the Deity under the figure of wine, wine-bearer, etc., as Hafiz is supposed to do; in short, a Sufi Poet like Hafiz and the rest. I cannot see reason to alter my opinion, formed as it was more than a dozen years ago[10] when Omar was first shown me by one to whom I am indebted for all I know of Oriental, and very much of other, literature. He admired Omar's genius so much, that he would gladly have adopted any such interpretation of his meaning as M. Nicolas' if he could.[11] That he could not, appears by his paper in the «Calcutta Review» already so largely quoted; in which he argues from the Poems themselves, as well as from what records remain of the Poet's Life.