None answer'd this; but after Silence spake
A Vessel of a more ungainly Make:
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"
[tr. FitzGerald, 1st ed. (1859), # 63]

None answer'd this; but after Silence spake
A Vessel of a more ungainly Make:
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"
[tr. FitzGerald, 2nd ed. (1868), # 93]

After a momentary silence spake
Some Vessel of a more ungainly Make;
"They sneer at me for leaning all awry:
What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?"
[tr. FitzGerald, 3rd ed. (1872), # 86; also 4th ed. and 5th ed. (1889)]

Thou who commandest the quick and the dead, the wheel of heaven obeys thy hand. What if I am evil, am I not Thy slave? Which then is the guilty one? Art Thou not Lord of all?
[tr. McCarthy (1879), # 344; in some # 345]

The potter did himself these vessels frame,
What makes him cast them out to scorn and shame?
If he has made them well, why should he break them?
And though he marred them, they are not to blame.
[tr. Whinfield (1882), # 52]

Who framed the lots of quick and dead but Thou?
Who turns the wheel of baleful fate but Thou?
We are Thy slaves, our wills are not our own,
We are Thy creatures, our creator Thou!
[tr. Whinfield (1882), # 242]

Who framed the lots of quick and dead but Thou?
Who turns the troublous wheel of heaven but Thou?
Though we are sinful slaves, is it for Thee
To blame us? Who created us but Thou?
[tr. Whinfield (1883), # 471]

From God's own hand this earthly vessel came,
He shaped it thus, be it for fame or shame;
If it be fair -- to God be all the praise,
If it be foul -- to God alone the blame.
[tr. Le Gallienne (1897)]

Almighty Potter, on whose wheel of blue
The world is fashioned and is broken too,
Why to the race of men is heaven so dire?
In what, O wheel, have I offended you?
[tr. Le Gallienne (1897)]

Our Guardian chose our natures. Is He then
Delinquent when He treats us with disorder?
We ask: "Why break the best of us?" and murmur:
"Is the pot guilty if it stands awry?"
[tr. Graves & Ali-Shah (1967), # 93]

When the Maker formed nature
Why imperfect was the venture
If it is good, why departure
And if bad, why form capture?
[tr. Shahriari (1998), literal]

When the Creator forged the shape
Why was mankind a mere ape?
If it were good, why cloak and cape?
If unsightly, why this rape?
[tr. Shahriari (1998), figurative]

Another said -- "Why, ne'er a peevish Boy,
"Would break the Bowl from which he drank in Joy;
"Shall He that made the Vessel in pure Love
"And Fancy, in an after Rage destroy?
[tr. FitzGerald, 1st ed. (1859), # 62]

Another said, "Why, ne'er a peevish Boy
"Would break the Cup from which he drank in Joy;
"Shall He that of his own free Fancy made
"The Vessel, in an after-rage destroy!"
[tr. FitzGerald, 2nd ed. (1868), # 92]

Then said a Second -- "Ne'er a peevish Boy
"Would break the Bowl from which he drank in joy;
"And He that with his hand the Vessel made
"Will surely not in after Wrath destroy."
[tr. FitzGerald, 3rd ed. (1872), # 85; 4th ed. (1879) # 85; 5th ed. (1889), # 78]

Who can believe that he who made the cup would dream of destroying it? All those fair faces, all those lovely limbs, all those enchanting bodies, what love has made them, and what hate destroys them?
[tr. McCarthy (1879), # 100]

Behold these cups! Can He who deigned to make them,
In wanton freak let ruin overtake them,
So many shapely feet and hands and heads, --
What love drives Him to make, what wrath to break them?
[tr. Whinfield (1883), # 42]

What man believes that He who made the Vase
Will sometime shatter it in Anger base?
The Maker of these weak misguided Men
Will surely not in Wrath His Works efface.
[tr. Garner (1887), 8.8]

The elements of a cup which he has put together,
their breaking up a drinker cannot approve,
all these heads and delicate feet -- with his finger-tips,
for love of whom did he make them? -- for hate of whom did he break them?
[tr. Heron-Allen (1898), # 19]

He who has formed the goblet from the clay
Can ne'er destroy his art's surpassing token.
These hands and feet and face of beauty -- say,
Why framed in love, and why in fury broken?
[tr. Cadell (1899), # 12]

The framework of the cup He did unite.
To break in rage how should God deem it right?
So many comely heads, feet, hands and arms!
Shaped by what love, and broke in what despite?
[tr. Thompson (1906), # 81]

The Craftsman who hath made a cup so rare
To hold his wine, will handle it with care.
For love of whom, then, made He thee and me,
or hate of whom to break and not to spare?
[tr. Talbot (1908), # 19]

It is not allowable for a man, [even when] drunk, to destroy
the composition of a cup which he has put together.
So many fair heads and feet, formed by His hand, for
love of whom did He make them? and for hate of whom
did He destroy them?
[tr. Christensen (1927), # 77]

The parts which have united to form a goblet
Even the intoxicated refrain to break up again.
So many heads and tender hands;
By whose bounty were they united and through whose wrath were they broken up?
[tr. Rosen (1928), # 10]

We know that body once can earn His grace,
We should not wear it hence in wasteful ways;
Such graceful form, and slender hands and face,
He cherished so, should we in hate efface?
[tr. Tirtha (1941), # 5.16]

The elements that constitute a bowl
Hate all besotted murderers of bowls --
Bowls deftly moulded for the love of whom?
Then dashed to pieces, as a curse on whom?
[tr. Graves & Ali-Shah (1967), # 92]

This bowl, which in its symmetry
Before us perfect stands,
The Potter made from particles
Of human heads and hands.
His love achieved a masterpiece:
Whose hate, what drunken whim,
Could shater into nothingness
The clay so loved by him?
[tr. Bowen (1976), # 50 "The Potter"]

When the clay into a cup is molded
Its breaking, the drunk scolded;
Many limbs and heads are enfolded
Through whose love unfolded, by which decree folded?
[tr. Shahriari (1998), # 27, literal]

The genius that shapes the form
Is far above mundane and norm
Clay into life shall transform
Back into dust by death’s storm.
[tr. Shahriari (1998), # 27, figurative]

Man, whence is he?
Too bad to be the work of a god, too good for the work of chance.
[ed. Wood (1893)]

There's an epigram tacked to my office bulletin board, pinched from a magazine -- [the quotation]. That's a light enough comment upon the disappointments of encountering the famous, or even the moderately well-known -- they are always shorter and older and more ordinary than you expected -- but there's a more sinister way of looking at it as well. In order for the paté to be made and then eaten, the duck must first be killed. And who is it that does the killing?

For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.
[tr. Dods (1871)]

Nothing that happens by the will of God can be ‘contrary to nature.’ The ‘nature’ of any particular created thing is precisely what the supreme Creator of the thing willed it to be. Hence, a portent is merely contrary to nature as known, not to nature as it is.
[tr. Walsh/Honan (1954)]

For how can an event be contrary to nature when it happens by the will of God, since the will of the great Creator assuredly is the nature of every created thing? A portent, therefore, does not occur contrary to nature, but contrary to what is known of nature.
[tr. Bettenson (1972)]

At that time the ministering angels desired to recite a song before the Holy One, Blessed be He. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: My handiwork, i.e., the Egyptians, are drowning in the sea, and you are reciting a song before Me?

When the Egyptians were drowning, the angels wished to sing. But God said, "My children are dying, and you would sing?"