Asst. Prof. Dr. Ali Mohammadi
English Language and Literature Department, Istanbul Yeni Yüzyıl University, Istanbul, Turkey
Omar Khayyam is considered an important Persian poet, the writer of Rubaiyat which was also translated by Edward FitzGerald. On the other hand, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the British Romantic poet is one of the most highly regarded and influential poets of the 19th century. The poetry of these two poets aims to change the human and by extension, the world. Their exclusive poems have enriched international literature with their aesthetic features arousing immense imagination and beauty. In this study, I attempted to provide an overview of their poems presenting nature as a source of inspiration, imagination, sublimity, and pleasure. Shelley and Khayyam set up a unique bond with nature. They felt closely connected to Mother Nature embellishing their poetry with themes of nature, imagination, and love as the main pillars of poetic motivation. Additionally, their poetry is replete with a profound awareness of their environment and philosophical tendencies. Beautiful nature in both of their homelands, Iran and England, arises aesthetic feelings leading them to compose their masterpieces. Khayyam and Shelley are not simply poets, rather messengers of genuine delight, meaningful life as well as truth, so to speak.
This article made a comparative analysis of Omar Khayyam’s quatrains and Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poems. The author developed a decent literary argument between the two poets in terms of poetic symbols and ideology. As for the symbols, the writer referred to a wide variety of natural elements such as birds, beasts, Sky, Earth, plants, etc. widely utilized by both poets so as to depict poetic symbolism in the works of two Persian and English poets. What is more, the author turns to the concept of imagination favored by Khayyam and Shelley as the most indispensable and supernatural characteristic of every human being to go beyond himself and reach the truth, to be exact. On the other hand, having read the article, it can be evidently seen that the writer makes good use of literary devices including metaphor, simile, oxymoron, and irony in order to drive his point home.
Another pertinent concept properly used by the author is the demonstrating of the two poets’ philosophical tendencies through the verses of their poems which makes the article conceptually consistent and easy to read. To illustrate, the article, in a paralleled manner, digs into the atheistic inclinations of Khayyam and Shelley in order to question the existence of a deity and to emphasise the significance of investigative mind or truth-seeking spirit. Besides, the article hints at the differences between the poets; for instance, Shelley is presented as an iconoclastic poet who stands against tyranny by writing revolutionary poems to awaken the English people to rise against despotism, hypocrisy, institutionalised religion, and corruption. However, this does not hold true for Khayyam since his ideology is based upon carpe diem, negligence of trivial things, and compromising with the world.
Overall, the article is of a rhythmic quality both with respect to structure and content, which is to say, it contains accurate grammar, spelling, punctuation marks, formality, conciseness, and vocabulary. Taking content into account, it should be stated that the author does keep his line of thinking and stays focused on the ordered analysis of the poets’ different poems by zeroing in on their philosophical, religious as well as ideological differences and similarities, so to speak.
Relevant Links: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v9i12/SR201206183301.pdf
Disclaimer: Any opinions and views expressed in this submission are the opinions and views of the person who has submitted the article, and are not the views of or endorsed by the Social Science and Humanities Research Association (SSHRA). The accuracy of the content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. The person submitting the article does not necessarily be the author of the article. The Social Science and Humanities Research Association (SSHRA) shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, about, or arising out of the use of the content. For any issues or any reporting, write an email to email@example.com