Divan-i-Ghalib: English Translation of his Persian Preface: Posted for Naseer Sahib
Jamil
problem prevents him from making a new post, although he can reply to
other people's post.
Jamil
------------------------------------------------------
Haaziriin-i-maHfil, aadaab 'arz hai.
I don't know whether this is a well know fact but Mirza Asadullah Khan
Ghalib wrote the preface to his Urdu Diivaan in Farsi. In the three
copies that I have, it only exists in the Hamid Ali Khan version.
Today, by chance but Abubakr Sahib being the catalyst, I came across
the following article by Dr.A.Q.Khan which I would like to share with
ALUPers. The English translation has been done by Dr.Sarfraz Khan
Niazi. If you think Ghalib's Urdu was difficult, see what you make of
his Persian; even when it is presented in English! More information
about the translator is given below.I could not locate the Urdu
translation. I have just copy/pasted the article, so it might be all
over the place. Here is the URL to the full article.
http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamIslamicCulture_1.aspx?ArticleID=4436
..........................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................................
Volumes could be written about his work, but today I would like to
introduce an extremely important and not easily available work. I
believe it is the first Urdu translation from Persian of Ghalib’s own
preface to his Urdu Divan. This information, together with the Urdu
and English translations, has been sent to me by my dear friend, Dr
Sarfraz Khan Niazi, son of that great Urdu scholar of the
subcontinent, Allama Niaz Fatehpuri, who was royal librarian in Bhopal
and who was decorated with the highest civil award of Padmabhushan by
the Indian government. Dr Sarfraz Khan Niazi is a biochemist and
genetic engineer by profession and has written extensively on this
subject.
Dr Sarfraz Khan Niazi has done an invaluable service to Ghalib by the
translation of his preface to his Urdu Divan. The language used in the
original was so difficult that publishers refrained from printing it,
but it should be introduced to Ghalib’s fans. I am privileged to be
able to reproduce the English translation here, thanks to Dr Niazi and
thanks to the wide circulation within the country and abroad of The
News and those of you who read my columns.
...............................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
Translation of Ghalib’s Preface in Persian to his Urdu Divan:
“The fragrance-appreciating palate is invited, and glad tidings are
offered to the genius of the assembly-sitters that some sources have
become available for dissipating fragrance by burning aloeswood in the
thurible and even some Indian aloeswood has come into hand. Stone has
not cut this aloeswood, nor has it been broken crudely or carved
haphazardly; instead it has been cut by an axe, and properly separated
into pieces by a knife and finely carved by a file. Now the desire for
taste is moving so fast in the search for the Zoroastrian’s fire that
it is losing its breath. The search is not for the fire that has been
extinguished in the Indian furnace and having turned into a fistful of
ashes, providing a proof of its extinction; neither is it dependent on
satisfying hunger from the bones of the dead for its impiety; nor
because of the lunacy of hanging to the wire of the extinguished lamp
on the grave. This fire can neither melt the hearts nor can it
brighten the assembly. One creating fire from his talent and the fire-
worshipper burning in fire for his bad deeds, know it well that the
seekers are impatient to get this radiant fire that has been taken out
of stone to present it to (King) Hoshang and which dazzled day by day
in the royal court of (King) Lahrasap; that fire which is a flare for
the blaze of straw, the colour for the tulip, an eye for the fire-
worshipper and a lamp for the temple of idols. This humble one is
thankful to God Who makes hearts warm with speech; a spark of that
brilliant fire this humble one has found in his ashes; and, so through
this, the hammering of the breast has increased and began to billow
over this spark with his breath. It is hoped that in a few days, it
turns that the brilliance of the light of the lamp would be in the
thurible and would give wings of a fast bird to the fragrance of
aloeswood to quickly reach out and perfume the palates.
“This humble writer desires that after making this selection of
ghazals from the Urdu Divan, he would turn his attention to his
Persian Divan, and after having achieved this feat he would keep
sitting having his feet broken.
“I hope that the litterateurs and also those who appreciate my work
would not declare my scattered pages, which are not included in this
divan, to be the result of the wetness of my quill and would not
oblige the collection of my writings with praise of those verses, nor
would they carve blame on me for their adaptations.
“O Lord, this is the smell of a being never heard of, and not coming
to existence from non-existence; that is, the carving is bringing out
the conscience of the carver that Asadullah Khan is alias Mirza Nosha
and of nom de plume Ghalib, born in Akbarabad and resident of Delhi,
finally let him be buried in Najaf (22 Dhi-Qa’dah, 1248 HA/11 April,
1833).”
Professor Dr.Sarfraz Khan Niazi
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
(Dr Niazi’s note: In 1833, Ghalib wrote a preface to his Urdu Divan
and, keeping with the tradition of writing the preface in a different
language, Ghalib chose Persian, just like Rumi chose Arabic for the
preface to his Persian poetry. Like his poetry, the prose Ghalib wrote
was difficult to understand, as he used many words that were not even
in common usage; this resulted in numerous typographical mistakes in
the Persian manuscript and forced the publishers to redact this
significant contribution by Ghalib. I have provided an English
translation as best as possible, given the inevitable difficulties of
interpreting rare idioms, compound words and Ghalib’s own vocabulary.)
Prof Dr Sarfraz Khan Niazi lives in Deerfield, Illinois, USA. He is
actively engaged in teaching, research and consultancy. He regularly
visits Pakistan and gives me the pleasure of seeing him. The two
books, Love Sonnets of Ghalib and Wine of Love are a treat to read At
present, Dr Niazi is translating Ghalib’s Persian poetry into English.
I am sure it will be a valuable work.
Dr.A.Q.Khan
..............................................................................................................................................
Naseer
Rajiv Chakravarti
posting it on your behalf.
It is certainly difficult reading the translation in English too -
very verbose and contrived. I don't know if the translator did this
deliberately to prove a point to the non-Farsi readers.
In any case -- I, for one, was completely unaware of the "tradition of
writing the preface in a different
language" and I would like to ask members here if anyone knew WHY this
tradition came into being. If the target audience is comprised of
Language A speakers, why use Language B in the preface? Would that not
deprive Language A readers of the author's words and thoughts?
The other question that popped into my mind was -- this tradition
seems to have largely (if not completely?) died out -- was that
perhaps due to the lesser knowledge/standards of the readership (and
perhaps even the author!, or did the authors decide that they would
like to bring their own thoughts to more of the target audience who
were able to read the contents?
Lastly, what exactly is Ghalib trying to say about the verses that he
deliberately chose not to include in his deevaan? I am not sure I get
the full gist of that paragraph either. Is he saying that it is not
that his unchosen verses are "bad" (wetness of quill..) ? I have to
ponder on this myself..
Just my thoughts as I read the article. If there are comments/
rebuttals/etc., they would be welcome.
Regards,
RC
Afzal A. Khan
> Naseer Sahib has asked me to post this on his behalf. Some technical
> problem prevents him from making a new post, although he can reply to
> other people's post.
> Jamil
{Rest of the post deleted}
I think the reason for the above difficulty could be that our
friend Naseer Saheb has been sending too many original posts
about Faarsi/Dari/Arabic related matters !!
Afzal
Naseer
Thank you for posting this item on my behalf.
I've been trying to type the Persian preface so that those who are
interested may be able to see the original. Unfortunately, I could n't
indicate the majhuul ye, the izaafat and the hamzah above the he.
Nevertheless, this is better than nothing I suppose.
مشام شمیم آشنایان را صلا و نهاد انجمن نشینان را مژده که لختی از سامان
مجمره گردانی آماده و دامنی از عود هندی دست بهم داده است ، نه چوبهای
سنگروب خورده به هنجار طبیعی شکسته بی اندام تراشیده بلکه تبر شگافته به
کارد ریز ریز کرده به سوهان خراشیده
ایدون نفس گداختگی شوق به جستجوی آتش پارسی است، نه آتشی که در گلخانهای
هند افسرده و خاموش و از کف خاکستر به مرگ خودش سیه پوش بینی، چه بر وی
مسلم است از ناپاکی به استخوان مرده ناهار شکستن و از دیوانگی به رشته
شمع مزار کشته آویختن. هر آیینه به دل گداختن نیرزد و بزم افروختن را
نشای
د.
رخ آتش به صنع بر افروزنده و آتش پرست را به بادافراه هم در آتش سوزنده
نیک میداند که پژوهنده در هوای آن رخشنده آذر نعل در آتش است که به چشم
روشنی هوشنگ از سنگ برون تافته و در ایوان لهراسپ نشو و نما یافته .خس
را فروغست و لاله را رنگ و مغ را چشم و کده را چراغ
بخشنده یزدان درون به سخن بر افروزرا سپاسم که شراری از آن آتش تابناک
به خاکستر خویش یافته به کاوکاو سینه شتافته ام و از نفس و مه بر آن
نهاده .بو که در اندک مایه روزگاران آن مایه فراهم تواند آمد که مجمره را
فر روشنایی چراغ و رایحه عود را بال شناسایی دماغ تواند بخشید
همانا نگارنده این نامه را آن درسراست که پس از انتخاب دیوان ریخته به
گرد آوردن سرمایه دیوان فارسی بر خیزد و به استفاضه کمال این فریورفن پس
زانوی خویشتن نشیند . امید که سخن سرایان سخنور ستا ی پراگنده ابیاتی را
که خارج ازین اوراق یابند از آثار تراوش رگ کلک این نامه سیاه نشناسند و
چامه گرد آور را در ستایش و نکوهش آن اشعار ممنون و ماخوذ نسگالند
.
یا رب این بوی هستی ناشنیده از نیستی به پیدائی نا رسیده یعنی نقش به
ضمیر آمده نقاش که به اسدالله خان موسوم و به میرزا نوشه معروف و به غالب
متخلص است، چنانکه اکر آبادی مولد و دهلوی مسکن است، فرجام کار نجفی مدفن
نیز بعد، فقط .
(بست وچهارم شهر ذیقعده سنه
1248هجري .
..........................................................................................................................
Naseer
Naseer
You could well be right about this, Afzal Sahib! Now, all of you will
have to assist me in being my post carriers and deliverers! I have
just tried to post a "Test" but have failed miserably. I don't know if
any technical wizard (or witch, just to be politically correct:-) )
can offer any advice to get me out of this predicament. Or, perhaps
everyone would prefer a break from me!?
Naseer
Afzal A. Khan
Thanks are due to Jamil Saheb for coming to the aid of Naseer
Saheb.
Naseer Saheb,
In Ghalib's time and even earlier, it was considered more elegant
to write formal articles or books (like the Preface or a Tazkira)
in Persian. Of course, it is very rare for someone to write
the preface of his own URDU deewaan in Faarsi. And since most
men of letters and other literate people were quite familiar with
Faarsi, it wasn't considered odd by any means. Almost all Antholo-
gies of Urdu poets written till around the 1850s were themselves
written in Faarsi, odd as it may seem to us. Meer Taqi Meer,
Mus'hafi, Shefta (and many others) wrote their Biographical Antho-
logies (about Urdu poets) in Faarsi only.
It is also important to note that it was the general practice at
the time to write prefaces or "taqreez" in very difficult and
ornate Urdu. To be sure, there would be a few minor words of
Urdu {like "hai", "haiN", "hum" etc.} but most of the rest were
strictly in Faarsi or Arabic. This sort of flowery language was
the norm. If you come across any book published originally by,
say, the Naval Kishore Press, you will find this. Most of us
(except possibly for Naseer and Jamil Sahebaan) would find it
tough going to navigate through that kind of text. But, for the
literate people of that era, it was a case of "no big deal".
Afzal
Afzal A. Khan
Naseer Saheb,
My services are always at your disposal. And I do mean it
seriously.
Afzal
Naseer
No, I don't believe the translator was trying to prove any point. You
take a look at the Farsi original and you will see it is no easy
prose. I have had the pleasure of reading (or should I say attempting
to read and understand) Nasir Khusrau's [1003-1077] Safar Naamah and I
can safely say that that was a piece of cake compared with Ghalib's
preface! Furthermore, I think the translator was possibly attempting
to convey the style of Ghalib's language rather than presenting a
translation meant for English tastes. Translation is an art in itself
and if Afzal Sahib had taken a plunge to translate it, no doubt we
would have had a very pleasant surprise. I am saying this with all
sincerity because I have seen one or two of Afzal Sahib's translations
from Urdu to English. With your knowledge of Farsi, why don't you have
a go? It would also be interesting to see what Abubakr Sahib makes of
it.
Regarding the tradition, take yourself out of the modern world where
book-reading is within reach of virtually everyone. One need not come
from a well to do wealthy or literary family. In Ghalib's time and
before him in Rumi's age, the literati had their own language and an
elitist language. For Ghalib, his contemporaries and his predecessors,
it was Persian and for Rumi, it was Arabic. Everyone who was someone
in the field of language and literature knew Persian or Arabic or
Sanskrit [or Latin and Greek in the Western world]. All the famous
English poets would have been at home with the Classics. Similarly,
for Ghalib to write his preface to his Urdu Divan in Persian would be
hammering the point still further that I am one amongst the top notch.
His contemporaries (friends and foes) would most certainly have been
equally at ease in both Urdu and Persian. In a way you could say that
his Divan was really meant for these people since ordinary Tom, Dick
and Naseer would most likely have been illiterate and at best semi-
literate. In conclusion, those that Ghalib wished his thoughts to
reach, would have got his message!
Now coming to the death of his tradition. Well, firsrly Persian lost
that former position a long time ago. Urdu itself is just about
breathing. Our political leaders can not speak their national
languages with fluency! Is n't this odd. The British prime ministers
speak English if Shakespeare himself had been their personal tutor
whilst ours feel more (relatively) comfortable in the current elitist
language, English. So, the whole environment in terms of quality of
language has taken a dive. The older generation, I am sorry to say,
will have taken the living, vibrant, rich and enviable language to
their graves. I don't think many Urdu writers (poets especially) would
be familiar with Persian or Arabic. Why should they, if they "paRheN
Farsi becheN tel"!
I know Allamah Iqbal was no ordinary individual but as a Punjabi
speaker, we know that he was a professor of Arabic at Punjab
University for a while, wrote in Urdu, Persian and English. Apparently
he had a more than a working knowledge of Sanskrit too and could
communicate in German. Now, is our society producing or capable of
producing such people?
For the time being, I shall leave the rest of your query to the
learned members of this Forum.
Naseer
Abubakr
58726a...@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, qure...@googlemail.com
says...
>
> Jamil Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
>
> Thank you for posting this item on my behalf.
>
> I've been trying to type the Persian preface so that those who are
> interested may be able to see the original. Unfortunately, I could n't
> indicate the majhuul ye, the izaafat and the hamzah above the he.
> Nevertheless, this is better than nothing I suppose.
>
>
> ????? ?????? ????? ? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ? ?? ??????
> ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?????? ??
> ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????
>
> ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????????
> ??? ?????? ? ????? ? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??
> ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ? ?? ??????? ?? ????
> ??? ???? ???? ??????. ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??? ??????? ??
> ????
> ?.
> ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??????
> ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???
> ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ? ??? ????? .??
> ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ??? ? ??? ?? ????
>
> ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ??????
> ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ??
> ????? .?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??
> ?? ??????? ???? ? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????
>
> ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ??
> ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??
> ????? ?????? ????? . ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ? ??????? ?????? ??
> ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?
> ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ? ????? ?? ????? ????? ? ????? ???????
> .
> ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??
> ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?? ????? ???? ????? ? ?? ????
> ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????
> ??? ???? ??? .
> (??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???
> 1248???? .
>
> ..........................................................................................................................
> Naseer
I only see question marks! Is this due to a fault in my newsreader
perhaps?
Naseer
> In article <a07bc8c3-f5f9-418d-bce8-
> 58726a66b...@j11g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, qures...@googlemail.com
> > Naseer
>
> I only see question marks! Is this due to a fault in my newsreader
> perhaps?
Abubakr Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
I have requested UVR Sahib to see if this problem can be resolved.
What a coincident that both our computers have rebelled against us!;-)
Naseer
Naseer
> Naseer
I have typed گلخانهای incorrectly. It should be گلخنہای .
Naseer
Abubakr
@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, qure...@googlemail.com says...
>
> On Apr 15, 10:41 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Jamil Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
> >
> > Thank you for posting this item on my behalf.
> >
> > I've been trying to type the Persian preface so that those who are
> > interested may be able to see the original. Unfortunately, I could n't
> > indicate the majhuul ye, the izaafat and the hamzah above the he.
> > Nevertheless, this is better than nothing I suppose.
> >
> >
> > ..........................................................................................................................
> > Naseer
>
> I have typed ???????? incorrectly. It should be ??????? .
>
LOL
I think my newsreader does not like the Arabic script. I had a look in
googlegroups and it was fine there.
Jamil
...
> > ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ? ?? ????? ???? ????? ? ?? ????
> > ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????
> > ??? ???? ??? .
> > (??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???
> > 1248???? .
>
> > ..........................................................................................................................
> > Naseer
>
> I only see question marks! Is this due to a fault in my newsreader
> perhaps?
Reading about the question marks, I thought Abubakr sahib had made a
joke and a very good one at that, since when I attempted to read that
ornate Farsi all that kept coming up in my mind were indeed question
marks (except the 1284, of course).
Jamil
Abubakr
@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, deh...@gmail.com says...
It's typical "sabki hindii" stuff. I think they took great pride in
being ornate and convoluted to the point of being almost
incomprehensible.
Abubakr
delta...@gmail.com says...
nashud aaiina-yi kaifyat-i maa zaahir aaraayii
nihaan maandem chuun ma'ni ba chandiin lafz paydaayii
(Bedil)
UVR
Naseer and Abubakr sahibaan,
From reading the posts in this thread so far, it seems all but certain
that Abubakr saahib's seeing only of question marks is due to a
problem with his newsreader (as he himself has surmised above). The
issue could be one of the software needing to be configured a
different way or it could be that it simply does not support the UTF-8
character set. The former is a solvable problem; the latter is not.
In either case, I cannot help beyond a point as I am not sure what
Abubakr saahib's newsreader software is. And that point is now.
It may help to propitiate the "god(ess) of search" (aka Google) :-) I
have found that s/he possesses many of the same qualities that are
ascribed to the Greek gods of yore (but that's neither here nor
there).
-UVR.
Naseer
Thank you UVR Sahib. Did you and Ghalib go to the same school? Both of
you appear to be writing in the same language!:-)
Naseer
Naseer
On Apr 15, 11:37 am, "Afzal A. Khan" <me_af...@privacy.net> wrote:
> In Ghalib's time and even earlier, it was considered more elegant
> to write formal articles or books (like the Preface or a Tazkira)
> in Persian. Of course, it is very rare for someone to write
> the preface of his own URDU deewaan in Faarsi. And since most
> men of letters and other literate people were quite familiar with
> Faarsi, it wasn't considered odd by any means. Almost all Antholo-
> gies of Urdu poets written till around the 1850s were themselves
> written in Faarsi, odd as it may seem to us. Meer Taqi Meer,
> Mus'hafi, Shefta (and many others) wrote their Biographical Antho-
> logies (about Urdu poets) in Faarsi only.
I was n't intending to respond to this post of yours because I felt
there was nothing of value that I could add. However, in the interim
period, I have been seeking means of obtaining an improvement in the
English translation of the Persian diibaachah. In my endeavours, a
very learned gentleman in another forum has put forward a new angle
which I am sure everyone, including RC Sahib [who seems to have taken
up "ban-baas" after posing his questions] would find interesting.
Poetic tradition preceeded the prose tradition. The reason why poets
were writing anthologies in Persian was simply because Urdu prose
writing was in its relative infancy and consequently these poets were
more at ease writing prose in Persian. In fact publication of Ghalib's
letters provided that much needed life and impetus to Urdu prose which
had hitherto been missing.
> It is also important to note that it was the general practice at
> the time to write prefaces or "taqreez" in very difficult and
> ornate Urdu. To be sure, there would be a few minor words of
> Urdu {like "hai", "haiN", "hum" etc.} but most of the rest were
> strictly in Faarsi or Arabic. This sort of flowery language was
> the norm. If you come across any book published originally by,
> say, the Naval Kishore Press, you will find this. Most of us
> (except possibly for Naseer and Jamil Sahebaan) would find it
> tough going to navigate through that kind of text. But, for the
> literate people of that era, it was a case of "no big deal".
You mean something like..
shabnam bah gul-i-laalah nah Khaalii zi adaa hai
daaGh-i-dil-i-be-dard nazar-gaah-i-Hayaa hai
Naseer
Rajiv Chakravarti
>
> I was n't intending to respond to this post of yours because I felt
> there was nothing of value that I could add. However, in the interim
> period, I have been seeking means of obtaining an improvement in the
> English translation of the Persian diibaachah. In my endeavours, a
> very learned gentleman in another forum has put forward a new angle
> which I am sure everyone, including RC Sahib [who seems to have taken
> up "ban-baas" after posing his questions] would find interesting.
>
> Poetic tradition preceeded the prose tradition. The reason why poets
> were writing anthologies in Persian was simply because Urdu prose
> writing was in its relative infancy and consequently these poets were
> more at ease writing prose in Persian. In fact publication of Ghalib's
> letters provided that much needed life and impetus to Urdu prose which
> had hitherto been missing.
The "ban-baas" stated above is to stay away from writing something of
ZERO value, and to try and absorb information from the more relevant,
informational and interesting responses. All I had/have were/are
queries. Naseer saahab even asked that I try to attempt my own
translations -- sadly, my Farsi is at a more rudimentary level at the
current time.. This response too, obviously, adds NO value to the
discussion at hand -- rather, it is just a "safaa`ee" to hopefully
placate Naseer saahab. :)
aadaab 'arz.
RC
Naseer
wrote:
Rajiv Sahib, aadaab 'arz hai.
What you are saying is fine but after firing a number of questions and
having received a few counter volleys , it seems logical to expect
some form of "feedback" or further quzzing. That's all. Of course my
"ban-baas" comment was a tongue-in-cheek remark.
Have you had the chance to place Ghalib's Persian preface in front of
some of your Farsii-daan acquaintences? As I have said in the previous
post, I am attempting to get a format which is a bit more user-
friendly. And all that for you! Since the rest of us would have been
quite content with what we had !:-)
Naseer
Rajiv Chakravarti
>
> Have you had the chance to place Ghalib's Persian preface in front of
> some of your Farsii-daan acquaintences? As I have said in the previous
> post, I am attempting to get a format which is a bit more user-
> friendly. And all that for you! Since the rest of us would have been
> quite content with what we had !:-)
>
> Naseer
Fair enough -- the current status with the people I know is that the
closest person I knew moved out of town for a job recently and is
therefore out of contact for the moment. I do have another person in
mind, in Iran -- I suspect Ghalib's language and grammar/structure
used will be difficult for a modern Farsi reader though.. We'll see if
I get back responses from this source. :)
I could have quizzed further based on your one direct response to me,
but as you suggested, was also waiting to see if other members had
anything to say on my unanswered "thoughts" (they were questions that
occured to me at the time).
From Afzal sahab's response however, I gathered that although Ghalib
(and other poets of the time) published a deevaan in Urdu, he expected
his audience to be fluent in Farsi! It may have been my "naadaani" (as
it were :-p ) to assume that Ghalib wanted his works in Urdu to be
read and appreciated by people who did not know Farsi at all --
perhaps putting myself (anachronistically) in the time with my
current knowledge. Maybe we should all give more credit to the common
man of Ghalib's time, I certainly will now! :-)
A sh'er for Naseer saahab :-)
kaun kahtaa hai k. naaloN meiN asar kuchch bhi naheeN?
dekh, pahuNchegi yeh faryaad bhi taa 'arsh-e-'azeem!
Regards,
RC
[
Naseer
> (Dr Niazi’s note: In 1833, Ghalib wrote a preface to his Urdu Divan
> and, keeping with the tradition of writing the preface in a different
> language, Ghalib chose Persian, just like Rumi chose Arabic for the
> preface to his Persian poetry.
Regarding Rumi, I recently became aware that in his "Divan-i-Kabiir",
in addition to his native tongue ash'aar are to be found in Arabic,
Turkish, Greek and Armenian! Would you believe it?
Naseer
Rajiv Chakravarti
wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:48 am, Naseer <qures...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Have you had the chance to place Ghalib's Persian preface in front of
> > some of your Farsii-daan acquaintences? As I have said in the previous
> > post, I am attempting to get a format which is a bit more user-
> > friendly. And all that for you! Since the rest of us would have been
> > quite content with what we had !:-)
>
> > Naseer
>
> Fair enough -- the current status with the people I know is that the
> closest person I knew moved out of town for a job recently and is
> therefore out of contact for the moment. I do have another person in
> mind, in Iran -- I suspect Ghalib's language and grammar/structure
> used will be difficult for a modern Farsi reader though.. We'll see if
> I get back responses from this source. :)
Following up (as promised). My contact in Iran read the Farsi passage
and said the following... The comments are NOT MINE, so please hold
the bricks/bats. Also this is a loosely paraphrased summary of what I
got back:
<feedback --- paraphrased>
This is old and difficult language, hard to follow -- full of
'sanaye adabi', most of it is a na'at (!!), but he maybe using
difficult words for a simple meaning. It also talks about a deevaan
and he thanks God for enabling him to gather it. It also mentions
things about India, but I don't completely get it because of the
sentence structure. It is old literature, like Sa'adi. However,
complicated does not necessarily mean beautiful. Sa'adi is older, and
his nasr is hard but we can still understand it, and it is beautiful
too! This passage is very "moghlagh" (complicated).
<end feedback>
Take what you can from the response, Naseer sahab -- this is the
reaction of an educated, modern current Iranian, in Iran today -- who
reads poetry and some literature.
Regards,
RC
Naseer
Than you, Rajiv Sahib. I am not surprised one little bit and to be
fair to everyone, it is not the run of the mill Persian. But I must
say there is nothing archaic about the grammar. It is more the style
and the vocabulary. Even more important perhaps is the fact that one
needs to know the literary background to understand fully what the
poet has in mind.
My experience, so far, has been quite the opposite to yours. This is
what one Iranian person has said.
"This is brilliant. Thanks for introducing us to this piece." I am
waiting for a translation from him but we should not hold our breath.
This may not happen. Another gentleman, hailing originally from
Lucknow region and who seems to be master of Urdu, Persian, Arabic and
God knows what else, has translated the first paragraph.
Unfortunately, I am not sure if he would be willing to translate the
rest. I might make a direct plea to him.
Naseer