Chehel Asrar 40 - Fortieth Ghazal

Ghazal 40

9 couplets  |  Riaz 1991, printed p. 478–479

دُوش دِل دَر غَمِ اُو مِی‌زَد با جان رایی

dūsh del dar gham-e ū mī-zad bā jān rāyī

1a  Last night, grieving for the beloved, the heart took counsel with the soul:

کِه تُرا دَر پَیِ اِین سُود نَشُد سَوْدایی

ke torā dar pay-e īn sūd nashod sowdāyī

1b  “Did no longing stir in you to pursue this profit?” [1]

Commentary on couplet 1

The heart turns its grief into a consultation with the soul, asking whether longing has stirred toward the profit it perceives in love. This inward conversation gives desire more than one voice: one part suffers and proposes, while another is invited to respond. Sūd, profit, stands beside sowdā, whose linked meanings of longing and trade are preserved in the supplied note. Their interplay makes sorrow resemble a venture whose value ordinary accounting might miss. Rāyī, counsel, also prepares the next couplet’s emphasis on clear judgment. The question therefore opens an inquiry into the lover’s readiness: attraction has suggested a gain, but neither the nature of that gain nor the capacity to receive it has yet been established.

گُفْتَمَش مُلْکِ سُلَیْمان بِگَدایی نَرَسَد

goftam-ash molk-e Solaymān be-gedāyī narasad

2a  I told it, “Solomon’s kingdom is not gained through begging;

تاجِ رِفْعَت نَکِشَد جُز سَرِ رَوْشَن‌رایی

tāj-e refʿat nakeshad joz sar-e rowshan-rāyī

2b  only a clear-sighted person’s head can bear the crown of eminence.

Commentary on couplet 2

An explicit “I” answers with the distance between begging and Solomon’s sovereignty, then asks what kind of head can bear a lofty crown. The recipient of “I told it” remains grammatically open; the reply need not be assigned automatically to the soul. Rowshan-rāyī, clear judgment, echoes the preceding counsel and makes discernment a qualification for eminence. In Qurʾan 38:35, Solomon asks God to grant him a distinctive sovereignty, explicitly acknowledging God as giver. [5] That context keeps royal dignity dependent upon a gift, while this couplet stresses fitness to bear it. The contrast with begging challenges the adequacy of an approach; it does not require contempt for poverty. Desire alone has not shown that the desired crown can be carried.

دَوْلَتِ جَم کِه سَلاطِینِ جَهان پَی نَبَرَنْد

dowlat-e Jam ke salātīn-e jahān pay nabarand

3a  The fortune of Jam, which the world’s kings cannot attain— [2]

کَی جَنابَش رَسَد آخِر چُو مَن شَیْدایی

kay janāb-ash rasad ākher cho man shaydāyī

3b  how could a mad lover like me ever reach its presence?”

Commentary on couplet 3

The speaker places himself below even the kings who cannot reach Jam’s fortune. Jam is Jamshīd, as the supplied note states; Ferdowsi’s Shāhnāma introduces his reign through a throne, golden crown, and sovereign glory. [6] That literary context gives dowlat, fortune or sovereignty, its grandeur. Here, however, the world’s actual rulers fall short of it, so worldly power cannot provide an adequate measure. Pay bordan can suggest finding access or coming to understand, allowing the distance to concern discernment as well as rank. The self-description shaydā, a mad lover, then returns the comparison to the speaker’s own inadequacy. The question preserves desire while refusing to treat the intensity of that desire as proof of admission.

سَیْرِ عَنْقایِ جَمالَش کِه نَگُنْجَد دَر کَوْن

sayr-e ʿanqā-ye jamāl-ash ke nagonjad dar kown

4a  The flight of the phoenix of the beloved’s beauty cannot fit within existence;

طَمَعِ جِلْوِهٔ اُو بِین تُو زِ هَر بِی‌جایی

tamaʿ-e jelve-ye ū bīn to ze har bī-jāyī

4b  yet see how every unworthy person hopes for its appearance. [3]

Commentary on couplet 4

The beloved’s beauty takes the form of a phoenix whose flight exceeds the space of the created cosmos, yet people still expect it to appear for them. The two halves set uncontainable movement against the confidence of a claimant. Kown can designate created existence here; the image need not describe passage beyond existence in every possible sense. Jelve, appearance or display, makes the expected encounter something visible and particular, sharpening the disproportion. The supplied “unworthy person” interprets the compressed bī-jāyī, whose uncertainty should remain active. The speaker’s rebuke also belongs within the poem’s larger self-questioning: the preceding couplet has already called his own access doubtful, and the closing will challenge his own tongue. He does not secure immunity by criticizing others.

قَطْرِهٔ بِی‌سَر و پا را زِ کُجا آن مِقْدار

qatre-ye bī-sar o pā rā ze kojā ān meqdār

5a  Where could a helpless drop find the capacity

کِه دَرُونِ دِلِ خُود جای دَهَد دَرْیایی

ke darūn-e del-e khod jāy dahad daryāyī

5b  to give an ocean room within its heart?

Commentary on couplet 5

A helpless drop is asked to provide room within its heart for an ocean. The question makes the mismatch between desire and capacity almost visible: the proposed guest exceeds the dwelling beyond calculation. Bī-sar o pā evokes the drop’s helplessness, while meqdār concerns its measure or ability. The verse asks where such capacity could come from; it does not announce that containment has occurred. Hamadani denies God’s bodily form and spatial containment while making access to divine knowledge dependent upon grace. [7] That parallel distinguishes inward receptivity from literal enclosure and leaves open the possibility of capacity received as a gift. The poem itself sustains the question, allowing the drop’s need to be felt before any answer is supplied.

سُخَنِ دُوسْت دَرِین پَرْدِه کَسی را زِیبَد

sokhan-e dūst darīn parde kasī rā zībad

6a  Speech of the friend in this veiled language befits someone

کِه بِه غَیْر اَز غَمِ یارَش نَبُوَد پَرْوایی

ke be ghayr az gham-e yār-ash nabovad parvāyī

6b  whose sole concern is sorrow for the beloved.

Commentary on couplet 6

The poem now considers who may speak fittingly of the friend through its veiled language. The qualification is concentrated concern: the speaker should have no competing preoccupation beyond sorrow for the beloved. Sokhan-e dūst can suggest speech about the friend or the friend’s speech; the phrase need not be resolved into a direct divine utterance. Parde, veil, describes a guarded manner of expression without establishing a fixed code for every earlier image. The second half locates fitness in the speaker’s involvement with love rather than in verbal ingenuity alone. This is a claim about the inward ground of such speech. It gives the poem a standard by which its own elaborate language, as well as another person’s claims, may be examined.

شَرْحِ دَرْدِ دِلِ خُود کَرْدَمی اَر یافْتَمی

sharh-e dard-e del-e khod kardamī ar yāftamī

7a  I would tell the story of my heart’s pain if I could find,

دَر هَمِه عُمْر دَمی رُویِ جَهان‌آرایی

dar hame ʿomr damī rū-ye jahān-ārāyī

7b  for one moment in all my life, a face that adorns the world.

Commentary on couplet 7

The speaker would explain the heart’s pain if a single meeting with a world-adorning face became possible. A whole lifetime is set against one moment, making the imagined opportunity both minimal and immeasurably precious. The conditional forms kardamī and yāftamī keep the telling and encounter alike unfulfilled. After the previous couplet’s account of a fitting speaker, this verse reveals the need for a fitting presence before whom speech could happen. The face may belong to the beloved or to a receptive interlocutor; the wording does not identify it conclusively. Its beauty promises a setting in which pain might become communicable. The wish to tell therefore survives the poem’s cautions about speech, carrying vulnerability rather than a claim to mastery.

اَز خَطّ و خالِ تُو هَر بِی‌خَبَری را چِه خَبَر

az khatt o khāl-e to har bī-khabarī rā che khabar

8a  What can any heedless person know of your down and beauty spot?

بِه سُها رَه نَبَرَد دِیدِهٔ نابِینایی

be Sohā rah nabarad dīde-ye nābīnāyī

8b  A blind eye cannot find the star Sohā. [4]

Commentary on couplet 8

The address turns directly to “your” down and beauty spot, then compares their elusive significance to a faint star. Khatt and khāl retain their bodily beauty: subtle details of a face demand an attentive beholder. Dehkhoda records Sohā’s faintness and its traditional use as a test of eyesight. [8] The analogy concerns the capacity to notice what is present; the eye’s failure does not erase the star. Bī-khabarī, heedlessness, also prepares an inward reading. Hamadani associates knowledge of God with the heart’s recovery from heedlessness, contrasting this discernment with conceited demands to be recognized as knowledgeable. [7] This parallel concerns spiritual attention. The poem’s image of physical blindness serves the comparison without making bodily eyesight a measure of someone’s spiritual worth.

لافِ عِشْقَش مَزَن اِمْرُوز عَلایی بِزَبان

lāf-e ʿeshq-ash mazan emrūz ʿAlāʾī be-zabān

9a  ʿAlāʾī, do not boast of love for the beloved today with your tongue,

چُون یَقِین اَز پَسِ اِمْرُوز بُوَد فَرْدایی

chūn yaqīn az pas-e emrūz bovad fardāyī

9b  for surely after today there will be a tomorrow.

Commentary on couplet 9

The final address names ʿAlāʾī and forbids boasting of love, because today will be followed by tomorrow. Lāf specifies an inflated claim; the warning does not withdraw the earlier wish to speak of pain. “With your tongue” concentrates attention on speech that may run ahead of what its speaker can sustain. Tomorrow can suggest later testing or ultimate accountability, although the verse does not explicitly name the Resurrection. Hamadani treats recognition of one’s own faults and God’s greatness as a remedy for pride, producing humility and kindness. [7] That parallel clarifies the closing turn toward examining oneself. The poem ends by placing its speaker under the standard he has applied to others: the truth of love remains answerable to what comes next.

Understanding this ghazal

This ghazal begins with an inward consultation and ends with a warning addressed to ʿAlāʾī’s tongue. Between them, longing repeatedly encounters the question of capacity: who can bear a crown, approach sovereign fortune, receive beauty, house an ocean, or speak fittingly of love? The opening heart and soul give this inquiry several voices, and the subsequent “I” should not be forced into a rigid account of separate spiritual faculties. The beloved remains unnamed. Bodily beauty, grief, and the wish for a meeting sustain the possibilities of human affection, while images of uncontainable beauty and inward receptivity invite a devotional reading.

The poem’s changes of scale unsettle easy claims. Solomon’s kingdom and Jam’s fortune exceed the speaker’s standing; the phoenix exceeds the created world; the ocean exceeds the drop. Yet the face’s down, its beauty spot, and the faint star shift the difficulty from vastness to subtlety. What overwhelms by magnitude and what escapes through minuteness both require a beholder whose longing is joined to discernment. This relation also links the opening counsel with the clear judgment needed to bear a crown. The couplets approach a shared difficulty from different directions without establishing a sequence of achieved spiritual stages.

Hamadani’s prose supplies relevant distinctions: divine knowledge depends upon grace, heedlessness can yield to inward understanding, and recognition of one’s faults restrains pride. [7] These parallels illuminate the devotional possibilities without authenticating the ghazal’s attribution. They also help keep its severity from becoming a verdict of permanent exclusion. The drop questions its capacity, and the speaker doubts his access; neither question is resolved into a completed attainment. The uncertainty of bī-jāyī remains particularly significant, since a compressed expression should not carry an elaborate judgment about other people’s spiritual standing.

Speech provides the poem’s most intimate test. The speaker criticizes presumptuous expectation, describes the concern that would make speech fitting, and longs for one moment in which his pain could be heard. The closing distinguishes that vulnerable wish from boasting. Its tomorrow leaves room for experience to test what language claims today, turning scrutiny back upon the named poet. The poem does not fall silent: it speaks carefully enough to make its own right to speak a question. Love’s claim must remain open to the life that follows it.

Sources and textual notes

Reading notes

[1] 1b: Sowdā carries the linked senses of longing and trade.

[2] 3a: Jam is Jamshīd, the legendary Iranian king.

[3] 4b: Bī-jāyī is read as an unworthy or out-of-place person; the expression is compressed.

[4] 8b: Sohā (Alcor), a faint star, traditionally tests the sharpness of eyesight.

Editorial references

5. Qurʾan 38:35, Solomon’s prayer for a distinctive sovereignty and acknowledgment of God as giver. This is a scriptural context for the royal image, not a source for the poem’s wording about begging or the clear-sighted head.
6. Ferdowsi, Shāhnāma, Jamshīd, section 1, opening couplets 1–6 in the online text. The crown, throne, and sovereign glory provide a classical context for Jam’s royal magnificence; no direct borrowing from this passage is claimed.
7. Hamadani, Dhakhīrat al-mulūk, in Mohammad Umar Farooq, Mir Sayyid Ali Hamadani’s Dhakiratul Muluk: An Annotation and Translation (PhD thesis, University of Kashmir, 2009), printed pp. 61–62, on transcendence and divine knowledge; p. 335, on knowledge and heedlessness; and p. 454, on the remedy for pride. The English translation was checked; the Persian wording was not independently collated.
8. ʿAlī Akbar Dehkhoda, Loghatnāma, “Sohā”. The entry records the star’s faintness and its use in testing eyesight, supporting the traditional context given in supplied reading note [4].

Editorial note: The supplied Riaz 1991, printed p. 478–479 reference, the signature ʿAlāʾī, and all four reading notes are retained unchanged. That edition and the attribution of this ghazal have not been independently verified. The commentary distinguishes the supplied reading from documented Hamadani parallels and the scriptural, literary, and lexical contexts cited here.