amounting to something like 3500 verses altogether. His wide and sympathetic knowledge of Oriental mysticism, already exhibited in the notes to his edition and translation of the Gulshan-i Rás (1880), makes him an admirable guide through the mazes of the Mathnawí, and in general his work deserves the high esteem which it enjoys. I do not wish to criticise it in detail and will only remark that the apparent simplicity of the Persian language is a snare for translators:
آن میسر نبود اندر عاقبت به نام او باشد معشر عاقبت
4. The Masnavī by Jalāluʾd-din Rūmī, Book II translated for the first time from the Persian into prose, with a Commentary, by C. E. Wilson. (London, 1910.)
This is "a plain literal prose translation," based on sound principles and carefully executed. Comparing it with my own version of the Second Book, I found that as similar methods produce similar results the two versions often agreed almost word for word, and that where they differed, the point at issue was usually one for discussion rather than correction. My obligations to Professor Wilson are not confined to the turns of phrase which I have borrowed from him now and then: every translator, and particularly the translator of such a poem as the Mathnawí, must feel the advantage of being able to consult the work of a trustworthy predecessor who has gone step by step over the same ground.
The present translation, in which the numeration of the verses corresponds with that of the text of my edition, is intended primarily as an aid to students of Persian; it is therefore as exact and faithful as I can make it, but it does not attempt to convey the inner as distinguished from the outer meaning: that is to say, it gives the literal sense of the words translated without explaining either their metaphorical or their mystical sense[1]. While these latter senses have sometimes been indicated by words in brackets[2], I have on the whole adhered to the principle that translation is one thing, interpretation another, and that correct interpretation depends on correct translation, just as the most fertile source of misinterpretation is inability or neglect to translate correctly. It follows that a translation thus limited in scope will contain a great number of passages which do not explain themselves and cannot be fully understood without a commentary. I should have preferred, as
- ↑ Some day I hope to try in a volume of selected passages whether a translator of the Mathnawí may not merit the praise which Jerome bestowed on Hilary: "quasi captivos sensus in suam linguam victoris jure transposuit."
- ↑ Frequently too the terseness of the original demands expansion in order to bring out even the literal sense. The brackets in this version mark off what belongs to a strict rendering of the original text from what has been added for the purpose of explanation. I have not, however, been so pedantic as always to indicate the insertion of certain auxiliary parts of speech which an English translator would naturally use, though they are omitted in the Persian text.
