Talk:Rubaʿi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ruba'i)

Loaded word?[edit]

Use of the word "sublime" in reference to Robert Frost's poem seems loaded if not directly POV. It's unnecessary anyways, so I'm just going to remove it. G-Flex 10:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubaiyat (رباعيات) came from the Arabic number Arbaa (أربعة) which means 4.Aziz1005 12:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delete part of page[edit]

I think it would be reasonable to delete the text below:

There is contemporary Rubaiyat is by the Iranian poet SALAH AL-DIN IBN BIN DEEN called The Rubaiyat of SALAH AL-DIN IBN BIN DEEN This Rubaiyat uses a number of patterns ie AABA, AAAA. This Rubaiyat uses erotic images to explore a range of mystical experiences. The use of erotic imagery was commonly used by Sufis in Sufi poetry. SALAH AL-DIN IBN BIN DEEN is well within this Sufi tradition

Thy red flushed lips pouting moon-flower
Clutch the bee in thy humid bower
Entangled deep he cries for more
As thy wines nectar on him shower
Oh cup bearer bring thy wine don’t refrain
Up lift thy porphyry cup that I may drain
My lips to thy lips jar
Lips on cups rim I sip again and again


Up turn thy cup cup bearer turns
Thy wine hotter than Karkhiya burns
The wine drips fromst thy hole like molten glass
It rim froths with bubbles in my lips churns


The text above may or may not be truthful in its claims of the Persian poet's existence; in any case the poet and translator are both non-notable as far as I can tell; the poetry, furthermore, is quite bad (at least in English; I don't know about the putative Persian), and the explanatory sentences don't inspire confidence in the writer's clarity of thought. The use was commonly used? Sufis used this technique in Sufi poetry?

Why not delete it all? If we do include it, the passage we quote from the new Rubaiyat should not be three times longer than our quotation from Fitzgerald's/Omar's.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubaiyat (رباعيات) comes from the Arabic number Arbaa (أربعة) which means four.

The pharsi for four is chahr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubaiyat comes from the arabic rubaii (foursome) which comes from four[edit]

Rubaiyat (رباعيات) comes from the Arabic number Arbaa (أربعة) which means four.

The pharsi for four is chahr

removal of misinfo[edit]

I've removed this statement from the article: "The Rubaiyat is the only original contribution the Persians made to poetic form", since this is manifestly not the case (Masnavi, ghazal etc.)

Coinage[edit]

Why is there a "Coinage" section in this article? Clearly, this article is about a form of poetry. If there happens to be a coin that has the same or similar name, it should have its own article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section removed. Hatnote added. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable Reality vs. Wiki-Knowledge[edit]

The Introduction to Peter Avery and John Heath-Stubbs' translation of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Penguin Classics, 1981, ISBN 0-14-044384-3)[1], like most real scholarly sources on the subject, states that the ruba'i (in Persian at least) is written as a couplet with each line divided into "half-lines," i.e., hemistiches (with rhymes occurring at the end of each hemistich, i.e., middle and end of each line.) But I guess we shouldn't let a verifiable source get in the way our "immense wiki-knowledge," now should we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.202.15 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info given in the article is also sourced. If you want to make a changes to cited detail then this is the place work it out. Span (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but actually it isn't. There are only two citations in the introductory section and only one in "Etymology" -- otherwise there are no sources in "Etymology," none in the section on the Ruba'i in English, none in the section on the Ruba'i in Bangla, and none in the section on the Ruba'i in Hindi. In fact, there's not a single "cited source" on this page that contradicts (or even comes anywhere close to refuting) the well-documented fact that the term "ruba'i" is used to indicate a couplet in which each line is divided into two hemistiches (which, using basic arithmetic, would make four "half-lines," hence "arba'a," hence "ruba'i" ...etc.) Again, refer yourself to The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, pgs. 633-634 (edited by R. N. Frye. Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-521-20093-8)[2] which says, and I quote:
"Leaving legend aside, it is sufficient to note that at a very early
date the term ruba'i began to be used for a poem having two main
characteristics:
(1) two verses (bait) or four hemistiches (mișrā) with the rhyme scheme
aaaa or aaba
(2) the metre known in Arabic terminology as hazaj ...."
Wow, that's already two real scholarly sources vs. two dictionary entries and one line a website (and I wasn't even really looking.) I wonder what I'd find if I was? Quit while you're still ahead, "Emperor Span," because it looks like your references are so thin that only wiki-editors (like yourself) can see them.

Ruba'i Article[edit]

Dear Justice007,

In regards to a nasty comment you posted with your edits to the ruba'i article: Peter Avery and L. P. Elwell-Sutton were both eminent scholars in the field of Persian Literature who taught at Cambridge and Edinburgh, respectively, for many years. If you think they were both "silly person" who "do not know what is Ruba'i," then you are sadly misinformed. In the future, please refrain from disparaging work you clearly have not read.

Writer83175 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have to learn much more about Ruba'i, and do not try to teach me, what you refer the source 4 that support us( me and Spanglej), that "known as ruba'i (four line poem) dobaith (two-couplet-poem"). You, suppose as IP 75.24.202.15 did this. Which books or scholars say "rubaí contians only two lines"???, that's why I said silly, though I was not polite.Justice007 (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is moved from my talk page to here.Justice007 (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Obviously, justice007, you and Spanglej did not read any of the articles posted because (if you had) you would have found the following:
"The ruba'i, pronounced rubā'ī, plural rubā'īyāt, is a two-lined stanza of Persian poetry each line of which divided into two hemistiches making four altogether, hence the name ruba'i, an Arabic word meaning 'foursome.'" That was in Peter Avery's Introduction to The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, (translated by Peter Avery and John-Heath Stubbs, Penguin Classics, 1981, p.9.) In case you don't know, a hemistich consists of half of a line of verse.


"Leaving legend aside, it is sufficient to note that from an early date the term rubā'i began to be used for a poem having two main characteristics:
(1) two verses (bait) or four hemistiches (mișrā'), with a rhyme scheme aaaa or aaba;
(2)The metre known in Arabic terminology as hazaj ...."
That was in the article "The Rubā'ī in Early Persian Literature" (written by L. P. Elwell-Sutton) in The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, edited by R. N. Frye, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.634 (the page you conveniently did not read.)


So, with all due respect, you are the one who has a lot to learn about the subject.
Writer83175 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I am not a person who casts pearls before swine. You read only the books but I have experience of both reading and writing classical and very technical rubaiyaat. I do not need your certificate, mind your own business and happy editing as the wiki rules. Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My note about Ruba'i[edit]

  • Actually article Ruba'i is very poor, wrong and not reliable. Basically Ruba'i belongs to Persia and its metres ( Beher) had been created by a non-Arab poet Abul Hassan Rodeki (some writers add more names) and that was also brought into practice by non-Arab poets. Urdu, (Hindi) poets followed them. Ruba'i (quatrain) has especial metres containing 24 categories (one can say classes or branches too). Ruba'i can only be composed in those especial metres, not any other normal metre, if it is so, that means that is not Ruba'i. Ruba'i is consist of only four lines, its two lines called (Sehr),Stanza. Ruba'i's first and second line must be end in rhyme (example-as behold and cold.), third without rhyme, but within 24 especial metres, that can not be changed, and forth line again in the selected rhyme,but that forth line (misra) contains high, strong and complete and deep meaning, that must be related with above three lines. There should be addressed only one point or subject, not as like ghazals or other forms of the poetry have. As a poet myself, as I have written in my books, and as I have read in few old academic and classic books (that I have in my library).That is the exact description and definition of the Ruba'i in Urdu, Hindi and Persian, I do not know about English Rubaí that in which metres it is composed?. One should and must know that similarly there is qat'aa that also contains four line but it is not composed in especial metres as Ruba'i....Justice007 (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The different rhyme-schemes and the 24 categories[edit]

I have found these to be un-Googleable, so I think it would be useful to, at least, list them here.

Nat (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nat, I did not able to notice you comment, there is a poetry book at the Google books in which 24 categories of the especial metres in Urdu only for the Ruba'i are written, take a look at the pages 45 to 48 that are the metres for. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many lines redux[edit]

The article currently states:

In classical Persian poetry, the ruba'i is written as a four-line (or two-couplet) poem, with a rhyme-scheme AABA or AAAA.

The sentence is adorned with 4 refs. This can't stand as it is. Normally I would just fix it, but in light of the previous, somewhat testy, discussion, I fear I'll have to make a strong case. The first problem is that the sentence makes 3 claims and it is not immediately clear which should be associated with the 4 refs. So I'm tabulating them below. At the moment I only have 2 of the sources to hand, but will try to look up the others reasonably soon. All 4 are now tabulated.

The verifiable fact is (I believe, and will try to show) that the English rubaiyat stanza is indeed 4 lines riming AAXA ("B" tends to imply that there is a "B" rime forthcoming, which in this case is false). The Persian can be conceptualized in the same way, but more often is conceptualized as consisting of 2 long lines, each with 2 hemistichs, each hemistich equivalent to 1 line of the English version. Thus in English it is always a quatrain with 3 riming lines:

A
A
X
A

...while in Persian it is more typically thought of as 1 riming couplet, 1 of whose lines also has an internal rime:

A:A
X:A

As I said, I'll continue to look at sources, but I wanted to give a shot across the bow in case people are still as worked up about this as they were 5 years ago. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CURRENT CLAIMS: In Classical Persian poetry the ruba'i is written as…
SOURCE 4 lines 2 couplets AABA or AAAA
Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, Princeton University Press, 1974, p.611 checkY "quatrain" NA checkY but notes that AABA is primary
Introduction to The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam,translated by Peter Avery and John Heath-Stubbs, Penguin Classics, 1981, ISBN 0-14-044384-3, p. 9 ☒N 4 hemistichs ☒N 2-lined stanza checkY but notes that AABA is primary
The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, edited by R. N. Frye, Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-521-20093-8, pgs. 633-634 checkY "quatrain" & "four-line", but ☒N "four hemistichs" in the actual definition ☒N 2 verses checkY but notes that AABA is primary
Elwell-Sutton, L. P. "The Foundations of Persian Prosody and Metrics," Iran, v. 13 (1975), p. 92. "must have originally been seen as a four-line poem" suggests it is not seen that way now? checkY but see note below. checkY
Note on Elwell-Sutton: I find this a somewhat confused and confusing account, and it seems to be where some of our problems come from. He clearly states that the form consists of 2 couplets. However, he contrasts this with a 4-line poem when, in normal parlance, 2 couplets would be 4 lines. It turns out Elwell-Sutton uses the word "couplet" in (I believe) a quite nonstandard way. Earlier he states: "The unit of any poem is the bait or couplet, divided into two hemistichs (misraʿ) each of the same metrical pattern and length." (Elwell-Sutton, p. 90) So for E-S 1 couplet = 2 hemistichs! Look it up: Hemistich = a half-line. So we cannot quite take Elwell-Sutton at face value: what he calls a "couplet" anyone else would call 1 line (comprising 2 distinct half-lines). Thus he means the same thing as Avery and Heath-Stubbs, but states it in a confusing manner. Phil wink (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elwell-Sutton Again: So it turns out that the germane chapter in The Cambridge History of Iran was written by... Elwell-Sutton; and published in the same year. Strikingly, its terminology is slightly different. Here, he does not use the word "couplet" at all, rather translating bait as "verse" (a better translation, in my opinion, since "verse" is more elastic in meaning). Phil wink (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So my conclusion is that Elwell-Sutton's terminology is confused and confusing, but if parsed, yields more or less the same structure as given in Avery & Heath-Stubbs, with the exception that E-S obviously conceptualizes the form chiefly as a quatrain. (To be fair, A & H-S print their translations in quatrains.) But for these reasons, Elwell-Sutton seems a particularly bad source for terminology (I'm not knocking his scholarship, which appears very good to me). Moreover, it is very hard to justify these 4 sources as all supporting the sentence in question.

I will review a few additional sources (which I expect will support and clarify the Avery & Heath-Stubbs position) — and will revise accordingly. Phil wink (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rubaʿi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rubaʿi&oldid=1210142102"