We might easily invoke everything which we’ve expressed up till now in well-intentioned witness against oriental poetry. For this reason we make bold to offer men whose truly intimate and direct knowledge of these regions is acknowledged with an admonition consistent with our aim of averting all possible prejudice on so excellent a subject.
Comparisons make it easier for everyone to form a judgment but they make it harder too. For when a comparison is taken too far and falters, a comparative judgment becomes even more inapposite the closer one considers it. We don’t mean to overdo this but merely to say in the present instance that whenever the estimable Jones compares oriental poets with Greek and Latin poets, he has his reasons; the connection with England and its scholars of antiquity oblige him to do this. Formed himself in the strict classical school, he is well aware of the exclusionary prejudice that nothing is of any value except for what Rome and Athens have bequeathed us. He knew, he cherished, he loved his Orient and he wanted to introduce Old England to its products by, as it were, slipping them in, which could be accomplished only under Antiquity’s seal of approval. Nowadays this isn’t needed at all; in fact, it’s harmful. We understand how to appreciate Oriental poetry, we acknowledge what’s excellent in it; but let’s compare it with itself, let’s honour it within its own sphere and in that way forget that the Greeks and the Romans ever existed.
It can’t annoy anybody if someone is reminded of Horace whilst reading Hafiz. On this subject, a connoisseur has declared himself in such a marvellous manner that this relation has now been spelled out and is done with once and for all. Here’s what he says:
In their views on life, the similarity of Hafiz to Horace is striking; it can be explained only through the similarity of the ages in which both poets lived in which, because of the destruction of all security in civic life, man was confined to a fleeting enjoyment of life, snatched in the instant of its passing.79
What we do entreat is that Firdowsi not be compared with Homer because he must show to disadvantage in every sense: in subject matter, form and treatment. Whoever wishes to be persuaded of this needs only compare the dreadful monotony of the seven adventures of Isfandiyar with the twenty-third book of The Iliad where the most varied prizes are won by the most diverse heroes in the most disparate ways at the funeral rites of Patroclus. Haven’t we Germans inflicted the greatest damage on our own magnificent Niebelungenlied through such comparisons? As supremely pleasing when properly lodged within their own sphere, where they can be snugly and appreciatively integrated, such works appear all the odder when they are measured according to a standard which should never be applied to them.
The same is true of the work of an individual author who has written much for a long time and in the most varied manner. Leave it to the clueless rabble to praise, to single out and to reprove by using comparisons. But those who would instruct a people must take a position from which a distinct and universal overview replaces sheer uninformed judgment.