PRESS
Sufism, Christian M ~ ~ s t i c i s m
and
. Romanticism
-. -.
-.
.- -
N . Oueiian
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Roman ticism
Naji B. Oueijan, P1z.D.
I
Presented at the University of Erfort, The German Society for English Romanticism.
November 1999. Erfort, Germanv.
Abstract
,~
Ihe Romantics. ~ h cBritish and German Roman~icsbefore them. felt a need tbr a
deeper understanding and appreciarion of other cultures so that Ronianticisrn may be
free from national confinemenls and that i t ma?, become. according to 1:rictlrich
Schlegel. a "progressive. universal poetr!.". T h q . thought. and the! were right. tl~at
the spiritual and literary visions of the \\orld ofothcr cultures might proLiilc Ihc~n
with ncw dimensions oi' thought fundamental for the estnhlistimcnt of their o \ \ n
system. 'To the East thcy looked with the q c s of excite~ncntand ad~niration,becausc
i t was a world endowed with a ucalthy spiritual. ethical. and c~~lturnl
heritage. which
was organic and practical at the same time. In the East the! Ibund a \vorltl order
firmly established upon the reconcil~ationof two spiritual dogmas. Chribtianit! and
Islam. and upon the fusion of mathematical truth with spiri~ualrevelation: and based
on this different \zorld ordcr, they discovered a lircrnr heritage cndou.ed \\irh love.
. \\hat Bernard 13lackstone calls "the Triple Eros"
power and ~ i s d o n i or
"To mingle mith the Universe. and feel
What I can ne'er express. yct can not all conceal."
(Childe Harold Pilgrimage, IV. I I . 1600-1 60 1 ) '
From the beginning, Romantic poets discharged their observations of themselves
and the world in works c a r v i n g bits and pieces ot'their traditional culture mixed
with fragments of different or even unfamiliar cultures. And from the beginning of
Romanticism. diversity of literary identity characterized them. Their writing it is
true, maintained a sense of Romantic identity; but this was free fiom unifor-mity and
susceptible to mobility. Each Romantic poet sought his literary identity in realms
lying outside the restrictive rules of orthodoxy. Their search \vas the kind that \vould
never end. It defied the boundaries of time and place. It transcended the apparent to
emerge in the mysteries of hidden realities; it went beyond the temporal to cherish
the Eternal; and it transcended the limitations of physical space to apprehend the
Universal.
In realms obscure yet felt, in the unraveled beauties and mysteries ofNature. in the
deep recesses of the mind, in the living experience of real existence, and in the allconsuming power of the Universe and its Creator they tried to locate their real
identity. Love, knowledge, illumination, ecstasy. and reconciliation, amongst other
terms, became keywords in Romantic philosophy. Man. Nature and Universe.
besides God, became the main ob.jects of Romantic theology. The Romantic theor\.
]'ALMA. Volume 7. Issue no. 1, 2001
9
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Romanticism
of Art diverted fiom traditional tlleories not by introducing unfanlll~arconcepts and
ideals, but by undertaking different approaches of perceiving and assimilating them.
Besides. there was a common feeling stimulated by the current dekastating events of
the Napoleonic wars and the dehumanizing effects of the Industrial Revolution that
traditional thinking had worn out and that a new cultural s>s;tem should be
established. Wordsworth, Keats and especially Blake made explicit calls for the
creation of new systems or else. they thought. they would be enslaved b~ current
doctrines and established s)istenis.'
It follows that the Romantics felt a need for a deeper understanding and appreciation
and literary
of other cultures. They thought. and they were right. that the spirit~~al
visions of the world of other cultures might provide them with new dimensions of
thought fi~ndamental for the establishment of their o\vn system. 1.0thc East they
looked with tlie eyes of excitement and admiration. because it was a \ \ o d d endowed
with a bvealthy spiritual, ethical. and cultural heritage, which was organic and
practical at the sarne time. In the East they found a world order firmly established
~lponthe reconciliation of two spiritual dogmas. Christianity and Islam; and based
on this different world order. they discovered a literary heritage endowed with love,
power and wisdom, or \vhat Bernard Blackstone calls "the Triple Eros" (1974, 325).
In fact. several scholarly works have recently appeared which, on specific historical
and general literary grounds, have denionstrated the significance of the contribution
culture of this
of the Eastern culture on British and other Western cultures.' 1.11~
different world order tired their irnaginat~veand intellectual faculties and provided
them with the opportunity to create their own.
In this work I corltend that amongst the numerous elements of the Eastern culture.
Eastern mysticism. or what is better known as Islamic mysticis~nor Sufism, attracted
the attention of the Romantic poets. But it must be lunderstood at the beginning of
this work that it is not Iny intention to prove that the Komantics \vere mystics or
Sutists per se. perhaps witti the exception of William Dlnl\e, tlie ackno\+lcdged
mystic of the Romantics; rather. without ncgating the influence of Cllristian or even
Far Eastern mysticism, it is my intention to argue that the Komantics were
influenced by Sutism because it suited their earnest purposcs and goals. In this
respect, and in relation to Romanticism, the term "mysticisnl" must be defined and
the basic differences between Christian mysticism and Sufism must be clarified.
Mysticism is a process by which the mystic is able to annih~latethe self to achieve
perceptive floatation reaching beyond the ordinary realms of man's cognitive
faculties. It is based on a deep fascinatiorl and a passionate lo\e ofttic .Absolute and
a longing for experiencing the via illuminativa, a state of illumination granting the
nlystic monients of intense gnosis, love, and exultation. Po dstirls ni).sticism, then.
one must identify the mystical process or the mqstical s\p;.rlsnce. An eligible
definition, ~ h i c hcannot be overlooked in this stud!. i. iusgsitt'd by Ronald b'.
Hepburn, who asserts:
PALhZA. V o l ~ ~ r n7.e Issue no 1 . 2001
-
- --
--
-
I0
Sufism, Christian Mysticism. and Romanticism
N . Oueijan
Mystical experience is a religious experience, in a broad but meaningful
sense of "religious". 11 is sensed as revealing something a b o u ~(he totalit) of
things, something of immense human importance at all limes and places. and
something upon \rhich one's ultimate well-being or salvation wholl!,
depends. More specifically. a mystical evperience is not the act of acquiring
religious or theological information but is often taken to bc a confrontation or
encounter with the divine source o f t h e world's being and man's salvation.
An experience is not held to be mystical if the divine power is not
apprehended as simply "over-against" one-~cholly distinct and "other".
There must be a unifying vision, a sense that someho\v all things are one and
share a Iiol>~.divine, and single life. or that one's individual being merges
into a "Universal self', to be identified with God or the mystical Onc.
Mystical experience then typically involves the intense and joyous realization
of oneness \\.ith, or in, the divine, the sense that this divine One is
comprehensive, all embracing. in its being. Yet a mystical experience may be
given much less theological interpretation than this description suggests. A
mystic may have no belief whatever in a divine being and still experience a
sense of overwhelming beatitude, of salvation. or of lost or transcended
individuality (1972. 12).
The mystical experience then does not belong to any particular religious dogma or
ro any one process of achieving higher knowledge. It is a universal constant. \vhoce
..\ ariations can be observed to be very clearly and characteristically shaped b ~ zthe
se\jeral religious systems upon which they were based" (Arbery. 1973. 12). Its
aniversality verifies the fact that all mystics share common characteristics: at the
bame time each has hisiher distinctive dogmatic background ~vhichshapes his~her
stical experience. Besides, mysticism. which evolves f r o ~ nreligious dogmas.
:??~glitnot conform to these dogmas. Thus mystics are not altogether theologians
~nasrnuch as theologians are not necessarily mystics. The key-terms used by all
;night be similar, but their conceptions of these terms migti~differ. The same is true
c.f m~,sticsthemselves; they all use similar key-terms to describe their mystical
:vperiences, but their conceptions of these terms may differ according to their basic
jogmas. Still, all m!.stics acquire knowledge and illumination by cic~lziuinttit7cc.
iliile theologians acquire knowledge by di~scrlption.' In this respect. one may
~ ~ l n s i dthe
e r Romantics as mystics
mystical experience, mystics claim, transcends the apparent and the physical
merges into deeper mysteries of the Llniversal Soul. The mystical experience is
. common goal of all mystics; and it is the basis of mystical sagacity and expression.
comment on mysticism that cannot be ignored in this study is made b!, John B.
.i,rman, who asserts:
'!I<
::ti
:'
Ilefinitions of mysticism tend to stress onc or more of the following featurss:
1
I
a) a particular ontology. in accord with the mystic's insight, usually either
monistic or theistic;
b) an immediacy or intensity of esperience not present in other forms of
religion;
. \ 1 \. Volume 7. lssue no I . 2001
II
Sufisni. Christian Mlsticism, and Romanticis~n
-
N . Oueijan
( c ) a separation from the physical, or from ordinar! social life. or from
ordinarq forms of consciousness (1983, 192).
Such general features \vould appeal to the Romantics. n i l o in their search for
instances of higher awareness sought intense experience., nith the Infinite and
Eternal. In this respect the Romantics were theists interested in the "mystica
theologia" more than in theologia proper. "The essence of ni! sticn theologia in
distinction from the usual theologia lay in the fact that it claimed to teach a deeper
'mystery'. and to impart secrets and reveal depths which Lvere othr.r\\ ise unknown"
(Otto. 1937. 131). The "mystical One" to the Romantics and the m!stics may be the
world. the universe and the eternal. It is the One cryptic and esoteric entity which
becomes obvious when approached andlor fused in; it is all-observant, all-knowing
and all-powerful; and it is supreme Truth, Beauty, and Love.
Also, it must be understood that mystical expressions are v e p highly subjective and
personal. Since mystics cannot record their accounts during their mystical
experiences, their accounts are based on recollection. M! stical experiences could be
compared to dreams and visions; and the mystics, the dreamers or visionaries, who
upon awakening might be willing to express what they recollect of their visions of
the Ultimate Truth. This, of course. correlates with the Romantic experience. which
is also dependent upon subjective recollection and expression of visions of Truth.
Blake's, Wordswoth's, and especially Coleridge's mystical expressions are based
upon this exegesis.
Another definition of mysticism makes this correlation even more obvious. I refer to
Freidrich I-Ieiler's conception of the term. Heiler labels mysticism as "that form of
intercourse with God in which the world and self are absolutely denied, in which
human personality is dissolved. disappears and is absorbed in the intinite unity of
the Godhead" (qtd. in Ching. 1983, 228). Heiler's use of the term "intercourse"
implies, if anything, the privateness and individualily of the mystical experience.
This individualistic feature of mysticisnl consorts kvith the Romantic emphasis on
the individual and on the individual experience. Ho~vever,while the mystic's world
and self dissolve in Godhead, the Romantic's self fuses in the world, itself an image
of Godhead. Williani Wordsworth asserts that this fusion of "the individual Mind"
with "the external world" is the highest form of man's arguments:
How exquisitely the individual Mind
(And the progressive powers perhaps no less
O f the whole species) to the external World
Is titted--and how exquisitely, too. ..
The external World is fitted to the Mind;
And the creation (by no lower name
Can it be called) which they with blended might
Accomplisli-this is our high argument.
(Prospectus to The Recluse. 11. 63-7
P.41dMA. Volume 7. Issue no I. 2001
-
12
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Romanticism
N . Ouei-jan
To the Romantics the mind and the self are one, and the blending of both is only
possible when the mind transcends itself into the other. This attempt by the
Romantics, says [Herbert Schueller. is intended "to transcend the mundane and the
human, even though the human mind is the agency by which this transcendence must
be achieved; the difficulty is that the only agency which the human mind has for
transcending itself is itself' (1993, 72). This further explains the correlation between
mystical and Romantic self-denial. Surely mere denial of the mind or of the self,
mindlessness or selflessness, does not necessarily lead to the mystical experience--we all have our mindless monients in which our minds become vacant and idle^-unless the mind, via intended or spontaneous concentrated meditation andlor
contemplation of the other, fuses with it: only then such experiences procure
powerful moments of knowledge.
The kinship between all forms of mysticism, Christian mysticism. Sufism,
Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism, has become common knowledge. There is no
doubt that "Sufism" is an Islamic term. but I strongly believe that the term, which
derives from the Arabic noun suf ("wool"), has a Christian origin. History tells us
that during the second and third centuries, Christians fled the persecution o f t h e
Ronian Empire and inhabited the mountains in Iraq and Lebanon. The monks. and
especially the hermits, chose the high mountain caves as places of refuge and of
contemplation and worship of God. They were the earliest Christian ascetics and
ln>stics ever. To those hermits. the natural beauty and solemnity of those mountains.
especially in Lebanon. represented the divine wisdom and beauty of God. Those
early h e m ~ i t swere called sufi'yiin because they wore suf garments as a sign of
humility and to protect themselves from the year-round cool mountain climate.
Those Christian mystics are frequently mentioned in Suti stories and poetry and in
?re-[slamic literature, which abounds with allusions to the light or illumination
i ~ x ~ ~ forth
i n g from their caves.%oreover,
if as the Sufi believe that the first Muslim
:n>.stic was the Prophet, then contacts between Christian mystics and Muslim ones
irarted as early as the Prophet Muhammad and continued throughout the course of
iie\.elopment of Sufism. There is no doubt that the kinship between Christian
m>.sticism and Sufism is a historic fact. Yet for the purposes of my work I would
I ~ k eto draw upon differences between Christian mysticism and Sufism, differences
\\hich may have been the basis of the Romantics' interest in Sutism. And altliough it
1s not wrong to assume that the Romantics' concern in Sufism was channeled via
:!~eir initial interest in mysticism in general, 1 have no doubt in my mind that their
2ngrossment with Sufism was augmented by their fascination in ~rientalism.' It is in
:onnection with the aforementioned that I will try to suggest the kinship between
Sufism and Romanticisn~.
1.l)ne o f the basic differences between Christian mysticism and Sufism is that the first
adheres to the authority of the established church while the second places the
-I>-stical experience above the authorities of traditional dogmas or doctrines.
i'II.M.4. Volurnc 7. Issue no. I . 2001
.--
13
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Romanticism
N . Oueijan
Commenting on the relation between experience and d o p a In Christian m!sticism,
H. P. Owen explains:
These mystics constantly appeal to the Church's authorit! in the realm o f
a s tlie Church
religious bclief. They accept unconditionally those d o g ~ ~ i that
teaches and in which all Christians believe. Moreover in \ a ~ i n degrees
s
they
show a detailed knowledge of the ways in which dogmas have been
formulated (1 983, 156).
Thus unlike the Suti mystics. the Christian mystics almost ne\er become heretics
prosecuted by the Christian church. "Augustine, Fraircis of Assisi. Bernard, Suso.
Tauler. Thomas a Kempis, Teresa. John of the Cross, all, though not free from
tension, were in holy 01-ders, lived out their lives in regularized Christian ways,
continued all their life to participate in Christian ritual and sacramental activity,
were not permanently excommunicated, did not die outside the Church" (Katz,
1983, 33). On the other hand, the orthodox lslanlic authorities accused the Sufi
mystics of being heretics (zanadiqa) and were prosecuted and even sometimes
martyred. Early in the tenth century when the Sufi mystic and poet al-Ha1la.j
advanced liis mystical views of love and joyful suffering, he was imprisoned for
several years and then executed. Al-Ilallaj, like several other Sufi rn1,stics. was
considered a martyr symbolizing the free Sufi spirit in conflict with orthodoxy. The
circumstances of Al-tlallasi's life and prosecution and his Suti thought were quite
known to the Romantics through several works. the most popular amongst those
being D'tlerbelot's Bibliothkque 01-ientale. which most Romantics possessed in
their libraries.' Al-Hallaj and other Sufi figures would appeal to the Romantics for
two reasons: first, because in their search for a new sqstem they re.jected orthodox
dogmas and doctrines; and second. because tlie Suti conccpt of ''-joyful suffering"
exonerates the Romantics'. especially W o r d s ~ o r t h ' s , notion of "silent pain" as
revealed in his "The Ruined Cottage," "S~tnonLee." and "Micheal". Also. like the
Sufi mystics the Romantics emphasize their indikidual experiences, unmindful
whether they conform to traditional dogmas and doctrines or not.
Another difference between Christian mysticism and Sufism is apparent in a
definition of the latter presented by A. J . Arberry, \vho asserts that "Sufism may be
defined as the m;,stical movement of an uncompromising Monotheism" ( 1 972. 12).
T o the Sufi, Allah is One and only One ("La ilah illa Allah"). The Prophet
Muhammad does not share Allah's Godhead. and in no way is he equal to Allah. It
follows that the Muslim arid the Sufi do not recognize an incarnate God. a Savior
acting as a medium between Allah and his \\,orshipers. The Prophet is only the
vehicle of the Divine Message to man, and the Qur'an is this Divine Message. Via
ardent repetition of verses from the Qur'an, the Sufi empties himself from himself
and becomes one with this Divine Message, tlius becoming one with Allah.
Christian mystic believes in the doctrine of Trirlity. Bernard McGinn asserts that
"Christian linderstanding of mystical union must be radicall? dit'ferenl fro111.lewisI-r
and Muslim ones, if only because union, hoivever understood. is with the triune
God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit' ( 1 996. 187). Tlil:~the Christian mystic's object
of conteniplation and meditation is God or God Incarnate. Jfsus Christ; the Bible is
not his immediate channel for achieving the rn!\!~cnl ?\p?rience. This rather
PAL>hfA. Volunie 7 . Issue no. 1 . 2001
.-
-
.--
--
14
N.Oueijan
\~lfisni.Christian Mysticism. and Romanticism
apparent difference entails Sufi katuses which ~vouldappeal to the Roma~ltics.7'0
the Sufi the Qur'an is the only means to achieve m! stical lusion with Allah. And
since. as the Qur'an clcarly states. "Whithersoever ye t ~ ~ r Lhcre
n . is the Face ot'(;od"
(Sura 7 :109). then tlie Sufi sees Allah in Man and Nature 3, well. To love Man illid
Nature is to IOL' C Allah: this of course gives Sufi<m pantheistic colorings.
Furthermore, the Sufi belief' in tlie Unity of Reing ( " ~ n h d a tal-\\~!jud") implizs the
unity of all elements of the Univcrsc in God. These features ~r.ouldappeal to the
Romantics. Blake's concept of "The Universal Man," Wordsworth's "hol!
marriage": Coleridge's reconciliation tlleory. Byron's laudation of the universe and
its elements. Shelley's vie\\' of !he infinite, and Keats's perception o f ~ ~ n i v e r s a l
harmony reciprocate the Sufi "Unity of Being." And like the Sufi poets. tlic
Romantics found their Divine Message in tlie elements o f t h e IJni\erse.
R
To the Romantics. perhaps the most appealing and attracti\,e feature of Sufism was
the fact that it was a vehicle for higher literature, poetry. Needless to say that almost
all Sufi mystics were Sufi poets; they believed poetry \\.as the highest form of
literature. This Sufi belief was strongly based on the fact that the language of the
Qur'an. itself the language of Allah. is the highest and most sublime form of
literature. The test itsclf is prosaic, but it is endowed \tit11 an incon~parableand
di\.ine poetic and epigrammatic nature. And, as mentioned before. Qur'anic \.erses
\\ere. and still are. the main ob.iects o f t h e Sufi conte~nplat~on;
therefore. it is not
\\rang to assumc that the Sufis considered the Qur'an their model for literal-!
:\.pression. Thus they employed poetry as a medium for their Sufi esperiences and
prose to explain them. Another reason for tllc Sufi interezt in poetry is skillfi~lly
cleared up by Anne~narieScliimmcl. \iho maintains:
Indeed, one aspect of m>stical languaye in Sufisni that should never be
oberlooked is tlie tendenc! oftlie Arabs to pla! with words. The structure of
the Arabic language--built
upon triliteral roots-lends
itself to tllc
developing of innumerable word forms following alnlost nlathematical rules.
It might be likened to the structure of an arabesque that grows out of a simple
geometric pattern into coniplicated ~nultiangledstars. or out o f a flower motif
into intricate lace\vork. A tendency to enjoy these infinite possibilities oftlle
language has greatly influenced the style of Arabic poets and prose writers.
and in many sayings of the Sufis one can detect a similar joy in linguis~ic
play: the author indulges in deriving difli:rent meanings from one root. Ile
loves rh!,mes and strong rtiythmical patterns--features i~lherited h). the
mystics of the Persian, Turkish. and Indo-Muslinl tongues. But this almost
~iiagical interpla~.of sound and meaning. which contributes so niuch to tlie
impressiveness of a sentence in tlie Islamic languages, i j lost in translation
(1975, 13).
'!I
course the Romantics were not as io).fi~lin "linguistic play" as the Sufi poets
~:r-e: but the! were equal11 enraptured b!, lyrical poetn In fact. Sufism as a
-.hstical order- cannot be separated from Sufism as a literar! movenlenl; indeed. this
ould appeal to tlie Roniantics. Christian m).sticism circumvents this particular
r a t u r e . This is not to isnore the mystical poetry of a few medieval C'I11.istian
,--\sties. Marion Glasscoe discusses five ~ n a j o rChristian mystics in his English
',ledieval Mystics: Richard Rolle. Walter Hilton. the Cloud-Author. Julian of
;.
:I l'1A. Volumr 7. Issue no. 1 . 2001
~
~
-
p
~
15
,.-
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Romanticism
Norwich, and Margery Kempe: only the first
N . Ouei-jan
often expressed his mystical
experiences in a poetic form.9 Indeed. most of the Christian mystics used prose as
er
medium for their expressions, and their prose cannot be categorized ~ ~ n d pure
literature, because it lies somewhere between philosophy and theology.
It follows that Sufism had greatly influenced the development of poetry in Arabia,
Persia, and other Islamic regions in the East. At this point it is imperative to note the
view of Michael Sells, who notes that Sufi mystics found in love and wine poetry "a
vehicIe to express an episode of mystical union experienced independently"; he goes
on to assert that "Poetic and Sufi sensibility are most closely intertwined at the
moment of union. To consider one the vehicle of the other is to lose the resonance
and power brought about by the interfusion of the two-language world" ( 1 996, 90).
Sells also presents an illuminating discussion of the different types and themes of
Sufi poetry:
The ode, or Qasida, the classical form that bequeathed its language, themes,
and structure to Sufi literature, was divided by medieval literary critics into
three major movements: ( 1 ) the nasib or remembrance (dhikr), of the lost
beloved; (2) the journey (a movement that in some way prefigures the major
lslamic journey of the Hajj); and (3) the boast. Remembrance of the beloved
is the wellspring of both the poetic and the Sufi voice. A brief listing of the
conventions and motifs of the poetic remembrance. or nasib. that will be
echoed, appropriated. and transformed within Sufi literature would include
the following: ( I ) the traces of the lost beloved's abodes; (2) the blaming of
the lost beloved for her continually changing forms and moods (ahwal;) (3)
the stations (maqamat) of her journey away from the poet; and (4) images of
fertility and tranquillity that memory of her conjures in place of the desolate
ruins of her campsite, images that open onto the underlying archetype,
beloved as lost garden ( 1996, 90).
The above proves, if anything. that the Sufi and the Romantic poets share common
poetic concerns that entail poetic themes and forms. First, the Arabic ode. or
"qasida," is the basic form of traditional Arabic poetry. Although prosody in Arabic
and English odes differs, yet the goals and themes are similar. There is no question
that the ode was one of the Romantics' favorite poetic forms. Coleridge, Shelley,
and Keats favored it over other poetic forms. Second. "Remembrance of the
ly
beloved," in Sufi poetry concurs with Romantic recollection of past days, ~ ~ s u a l of
good old days or of times of childhood and of events invigorating passionate
feelings and moments Wordsworth recollects:
There was a time when meadow, grove, and stream,
The earth, and every common sight,
To me did seem
Appareled in celestial light,
The glory and the freshness of a dream.
("Ode: Intimations of Immortality from Recollections of Early
Childhood." 11. 1-5)
Almost the same words are repeated by Coleridge:
PALMA. Volume 7. Issue no. 1. 2001
16
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Rornanticism --
N. Ouei.jan
There was a time whcn. though my path was rough.
This joy within me dallied with distress,
And all misfortunes were but as the stuff
Whence Fancy made me dreams of happiness
("Dejection: An Ode," 11. 76-79)
Coleridge's use of the mystical tcrni "path" should not be overlooked: it is discussed
later in this work. Recollection, however, is sornetinies stimulated by desolate
.settings. This concern is obvious in both Sufi and Romantic poetry. In fact, in
traditional Arabic literature "Al-Wuquf al itlal" (i.e., poetry stimulated b) the
poets' observation of the ruins of his beloved or of his people's abodes) was a
popular poetic genre. The constant movement of the Arab tribes contributed to the
emergence of this genre, which the Sufi developed and perfected in hisiher poetry.
In Roniantic poetry, Wordswoth's "The Ruined Cottage" epitomizes this Sufi
tradition. In fact the Romantic poets were fascinated by old ruins and their
s>.mbolical representations. Byron's and Shelley's poetry is packed with ruins
poetry.'0 In "Recollections of Love," Coleridge adheres to the Sufi tradition when he
mphasizes the natural setting invigorating ~nernoriesof his beloved. Byron's poetry
.hounds with similar recollections, the most known of which is his rccollcction of
iiis beloved Teresa in his "Stanzas to the Po." Third. the "Hajj" ("the Journey")
rhenie of the Sufi poets corresponds to the circuitou~,journeyofthe Romantics.
Although the quest motif is a traditional theme in world literatures. it is the basic
.i,namic force that generates movement and action in Sufi and Romantic literature.
In both movements the poet separates from his traditional world order to discover
another one embodying permanent truth. In other word, he separates from his self to
roan1 in the domain of the other to unravel the mysteries of both the self and the
cther. In Sufism and Ronianticisni, separation from the self involves a detachment
r'so~nthe material self and other-such a separation involves pain and suffering-and an attachment to or a fusion of the spiritual selfwith the spiritual other-such a
fusion involves redemption and reconciliation.
Furthermore, the concept of a literary movement applies to both Sutisni and
Konianticism. A literary niovement indicates change and development in the course
cf time of fixed literary ideals. It is a trend advancing a desire to dynamize hurnan
rliought in order to free it from orthodoxy. And it is characterized by gro~vthand
jsvelopment in literary activities and interests. Sufism dyna~nized the Muslinl's
\ ie\v of Allah: it gave him the opportunity to experience Allah rather than to Icarn
.ihout Him. It represented a dynamic change in ~nari'sperceptions of God and the
:'niverse; accordingly, it revolted against fixed canons. ,411 definitions and
Aiscussions o f Sufisrn emphasize the fact that it is a "mystical movement" with an
drganic power to change orthodox interpretations of Cod, the Universe. and
an."
Romanticism embraces all the above characteristics. "All periods are really
:r~ovements in time," contends Haward E. Hugo, "hut the exponents of liomanticism
ssemed unusually aware that theirs was a moment of flus. o f organic changc and
:!.o\i,th. while they undertook to revolt against what the! regarded as the tixed,
?Llt\\torn canons of preceding generations" (1975, 2 ) . Morse Peckhani asserts that
.':he cultural development of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is properly to be
'i ALhIA. Volume 7, Issue no. 1. 2001 _
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Ronianticism
N . Oueijan
regarded as a development of Romanticism, the specific values of which I classified
as 'change. imperfection, growth, diversity, the creatibe imagination, the
unconscious.'" ( 1 96 1. 1 ) Thus movement, signifying change and growth. seems to
be the hidden force driving both Sufism and Rolnanticrsm along parallel literas\
courses.
Another characteristic of Sufism which would appeal to the Komantics is
individuality of each Sufi order. It could cei-tainly be argued that the subjectivity of
Sufi mystical experience contributed to the diversity of its orders. The most
influential Sufi orders were the Qadiri's and the Suhraward'iya in Persia, the
Shadhili'ya in Arabia, and the Mevleviya in Turkey. They all had the same starting
point; however, each order suited the aspirations of the Sufi sage behind it.
Komanticisr~i is characterized by individuality and diversity. In as much as a11
Romantic poets shared a coinrnon philosophical basis. each poet emphasized private
nianners of expressing it.
Sufisrn also attracted the attention of the Romantics because of its difference or
originality. Literary difference signifies new rnodes of expression involving ne\v
tnorphological, lexical, and syntactic components, which produce a peculiar literary
intertextuality (i.e. the sense of artistic coherence between the thoughts and the
forms contributing to tlie wholeness and tlie beauty o f a literary work). Literary
difference emerges from differences of cultural backgrounds and settings. These
differences. rarely transmitted via translations, are appreciated and perceived by
Western literary figures who have a sufficient knowledge of other cultures. Indeed.
all the Romantics were genuinely interested in other cultures. especially the Eastern
culture. Although none had a knowledge of the Eastern languages except Lord
Byron, who learned Armenian and a little Turkish and Arabic. they had the
advantage of having translations and transliterations made by authoritive Orientalists
such as Jean Antoine Galland. Simon Ockley, George Sale, and especially Sir
William Jones, amongst several other Orientalists. u h o exerted a greater intluence
on the Romantics than on their contemporaries or predecessors.'2 These
transliterated versions of Oriental works would exhibit original sounds as much as
the translations would present original metaphors and views. Such a difference.
which was quite observant in Sufi poetry, would appeal to the Romantics.
To end this discussion. 1 dare say that if Romanticism is a spiritual revolution
against orthodoxy, then one could coin Sufisni as an early form of Eastern
Romanticism; or, even better. one may consider Romanticism as a moderate form of
Sufism. I may also say that the Romantics saw in Sufism a literary movement. which
had the power to change stock conventions and which had a lot to offer. Indeed, the
evidence for the Romantic interest in Sufism and for the resemblance between Sufi
and Romantic spiritual and artistic values is interesting enough to,justi@ further
investigation. 1 must confess, however, that I cannot claim that 1 have given a full
argument supporting my thesis-the topic is too rich to discuss in a work with a
limited scope. Also I must concede that it is my purpose to slio~v,rather indirectly,
that the great imaginative thinkers of the \vorld. nliether or not they are
demographically, historically and geographically linked. h a w common concerns.
PAI-MA. Volume 7. Issue no. I . 2001
_
1S
Sufism, Christian Mysticism. and Romanticism
N. Ouei-jan
\vliich categorize them all as human beings and that all cultures of the world are
parrs of a "unified nexus"."
Works Cited
Abrams, M. CI. (1973) Natural Supernaturalism: Tradition and Revolution in
Romantic Literature. New York: W. W. Norton &: Cornpan!,.
b
e A. J . (1972) Sufism: An Account o f t h e Mystics of Islam. London: George
Allen & Unwin LTD.
Hlackston. Bernard (1974) "H!ron and Islam. the Triple Eros." Journal of European
Studies, 4. 325-63.
D'Herbelot, Barthelamy (1776) Ribliothkque Orientale, vol. 11. Maestricht.
~.'annan, John B. (1983) "Conceiving Hindu 'Ghakti' as Theistic Mysticism,"
Mysticism arid Religious Traditions, ed. Steven T. Katz. Oxford: Oxlord
University Press. 19 1-225
Ciiing. Julia (1983) "The Mirror Symbol Revisited: Confucian and Taoist
Mysticisn~." Mysticism and Religious Traditions. ed. Steven T. Katz.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2 2 6 4 6 .
;.lsscoe, Marion ( I 993) English Medieval Mystics. London: Longman
-':pburn.
Ronald W. ( 1 972) "Mysticism. Nature and Assessment of," Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, vol. V.
I:lthneister, Gerhart (1998) "The Problem of Nationalisln and Cultural Identit! in
the Age of Goethe: Dialectics of National and Global Views of Herder, A .
W. Schlegel. and Goethe," Rolnanticism Across the Discipline. ed. by
Larry H. Peer. New York: University Press of America. Inc., 1998, 1 1-26.
-:..go. Howard E. ( 1975) The Portable Romantic Reader. New York: The Viking
Press.
-,.:.rr. Steven T . (1983) "The 'Conservative' Character of Mystical Experience,"
Mysticism and Religious Traditions. ed. Steven T. Katz. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 3-60.
'.:;C;ann, Jerome J . , ed. (1978-92) Lord Byron: The Complete Poetical Works.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. vol.ll.
'-Glnn. Bernard (1996) "Comments" Mystical Union in Judaism. Christianitb, and
Islam, eds. Moshe Ldel and Bernard McGinn. New Y o r k Continuum,
1996, 185-93
Rudolf (1932) Mysticism East and West: A Comparative Analjsls o f t h e
Nature of Mysticism New York
\ I -4. Volume 7. Issue no. 1, 200 1
I9
Sufisni, Christian Mlsticism, and Romanticism
N. Ouei-jan
-~
Ouei-ian, Naji B. (1998) "Orientalism: '['he R o m a n t ~ c ' i .Aii~lsd L)imension,"
Romanticism in its Modern Aspects. s d . \ ' i r g ~ i\:moi,inu. U'ilmington:
Council on National Literatures, 37-50.
,
(1966) The Progress of an Image: The
York: Peter Lang.
Eabr
in E~iglisliLiterature. New
Owen, H . P. (1983) "Esperience and Dogma in th? t n s l ~ s l l\l!stics." Mysticism
and Religious Traditions, ed. Steven T. Katr C)\t;)rd: O ~ f o r dUniversity
Press. 148-63.
Peckham. hlorse (I 96 1 ) " T o \ ~ a s da Theory of Koniantiiisn~:11. Reconsiderations."
Studies in Romanticism, ~ o l I,. No. 1, 1-12.
Perkins. David. ed. (1967) English Romantic Writers. St\\ York: Ilarcourt Brace
Jovanovich. INC.
IJicktall, Mohammed Marmaduke Trans. (n.d.) The hIeanins ot'the Glorious Koran.
New York: Mentor Book.
Schimmel, Annemarie (1 975) Mystical Dimensions of Islam. Chapel Hill: 'The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schueller, Herbert M . (1993) "Komanticisni Reconsidered," in Prism[s]: Essays in
Romanticism. 1 , 67-37.
Sells, Michael (1906) .-Bewildered Tongue: The Symantics of Mystical Union in
Islam," M>stical Union in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, eds. Moshe
ldel and Bernard McGinn. Neu' York: Continuum. 87-124.
End Notes
I
In Jerome J. McGann's (1978-92) Lord H ~ r o n The
,
Complete Poetical Works
(O\ford. Cl'trendon Press). vol.1 I .
' M. H. Abrams makes a reliable discussion of this point (1973. 65-70)
' Amongst these works see the following: Martha Pike Conant (I 908) The Oriental
Tale in England in the Eiglltecnth Century (New Yorh: Columbia Llniversity
Press); Norman Danicl ( 1962) Islam and the West: The hlaking of an Image
(Edinburgh: The University Press); Samuel C . Che\v (1974) The Crescent and
the Rose: Islam and England during the Renaissance 1965: rpt. (New York:
Octagon Books); Byron Porter Smith (1977) Islani In English Literature (New
York: Caravan Books); Edward Said (1979) OI-ltntalisni(New York: Vintage
Books): Mary Anne Stevens, ed. (1984) Tlis Or~sntalists:Delacroix to
Matisse: The Allure of North Afiica and tlis Si.,i!-E a h t i London: Weidenfeld
and Nicolson): Lisa Lowe (1 99 1 ) Critical Tcrr;iln\. French and British
Orientalism (London: Cornell Uni\.ersit! Prss..
Lsask (1 992) British
Romantic Writers and the East (Ns\\ l . o r k C::-:!.!-iciir?
University Press):
PALMA. Volume 7, Issuc no. 1. 200 1
--
--
20
Sufism, Christian Mysticism, and Romanticism --
N. Oueijan
Mohammed Sharafi~ddin (1994) lslaln and Romantic Orientalism (London: 1 .
B. Tauris Publishers): John M. MacKenzie (1995) Orientalism: Histor),
Theory and the Arts (Manchester: Manchester University Press): and Naji B.
Oueijan ( 1 999) A Compendium of Eastern Elements in Byron's Oriental Tales
(New York: Peter Lang).
' The
terms "acquaintance" and "description" are employed by Steven T. Katz
(1983, 21).
This and other quotations from Romantic writers are taken from David Perkins, ed.
(1967) English Romantic Writers (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
INC.), unless otherwise indicated.
Annemarie Schimmel (1975, 34-35) presents an interesting discussion of the
influence of the early Christian mystics on Sufism.
The facination of the Romantic poets in Orientalisrn is discussed in Naji B.
Oueijan (1 996, 67-1 13); see also Na.ji B. Oueijan (1 998, 37-50) "Orientalism:
The Romantic's Added Dimension," Romanticism in its Modern Aspects, ed.
Virgil Ne~noianu(Wilmington: Council on National Literat~~res).
(D'Herbelot.
1776, 11, 118-90); D'Herbelot's
work
includes entries with
information about Oriental life and culture and discusses several Sufi poets
and thinkers like "Gazali" ( 1776, 11. 66) and others.
Marion Glasscoe (1993) makes a fill1 discussion of the Christian mystics.
I
10
For instance, when Childe Harold reaches Waterloo. the narrator orders him to
"Stop!-for thy tread is on an Empire's dust!" (Childe Harold's Pilgrimage,
111, I. 145); see also Shelley's "Oqrnandias".
'I
A. J. Arberry discusses Sufism as a ~nystical"movement dominating the minds
and hearts of learned and earnest men. Yet its mark lies ineradicably athwart
the pages of Muslim literature; the technical vocabulary ofthe Sufis, with all
the psychological subtlety of its terms, can scarcely be eliminated from the
language of modern philosophy and sciencen(1972. 133). Annemarie
Schimmel (1975) treats Sufism as a movement and ackno\vledges the great
impact of Sufism on the develop~nentof Oriental literatures and languages.
- For a detailed study of this topic, see (Oueijan. 1996, 37-66).
'
Gerhart Hoffmeister (1998, 14) uses the term, "unified nexus," to describe
Herders understanding of the cultures of mankind.
P.ALMA, Volume 7, Issue no. 1. 2001
21