ab kih woh majlis faroz-e khalwat-e nms th

ritah-e har ama khr-e kiswat-e fns th

(Ghalib, Urdu dwn 39.1)
Nazm Tabtab sees this image as that of a restless candle/flame. (Im quoting
Frans translation from A Desertful of Roses): In short, before her the candle kept
growing restless, as if there were a thorn in its clothing (my italics). Hasrat
Mohani follows suit: The meaning is that in the beloveds modest seclusion,
where no one was admitted, even the candle had come to be in an extraordinary
state of infatuation[from Latin infatuatus, pp. of infatuare make a fool of,
infatuate, from in- in + fatuus foolish]. Bekhud Dehlavi too reiterates the
candle was melting with shame, and the candle-wick had become the thorn in the
candles robe (my italics). Heres part of Faruqi Sahibs commentary (Urdu text in
Faruqi 2006:71) on this matlah from Tafhm-e Ghlib in Frans (desertful)
translation from Desertful:

The light of the candle shines out from the lantern, and makes the lantern
reddish. From the heat of the candle, the lantern becomes hot and dry.
Redness and heat and dryness are signs of restlessness. The lantern in
which redness and heat are violently glowing, is in this state because of the
candle-wick. Thus, its been proved that the candle-wick is pricking like a
thorn in the robe of the lantern. And since the lantern is the robe of the
candle, we have learned that the candle has a thorn in its robe (that is, is
restless) ....
(A Desertful of
Roses:http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ghalib/039/39_01.html
;my italics)
A few commentators read the image of this text as being that of a
restless/uncomfortable lantern:
nms=arm o hay
majlis afroz ama basabab be pardg aur ruswa ke myah-e zr-e fns
th.
(Wlah 1893:28)
matlab hai kih rt bazm-e rz me un ke tb o jaml-e husn k yeh lam
th, kih har ritah-e- ama libs-e fns ke liye goy khr-e kiswat th yan
un k majlis faroz se ama hasad me jalt th. aur un ke husn o jaml ke
smne ama k raun mnd th.
(Suh 1998 (1923): 81-2)
rt, kih wo khalwat faroz-e majlis nms-e mahfil me th to fns ke liye
am ka har ek ritah khar-e libs ban hu th. yn ama se us ko taklif
ho rahi thi aur wo armindah th.
(s 1931.: 83)
kehte hai j rt jabkih wo olah-r apn khalwatgah-e arm o hay me
jalwah afroz th to uske tb-e husn se mre arm ke ama-e rauan k
dhg jo usk hawdr yn wajh-e nr hot hai fns ko khr-e pairhan
ki tarah be cain kiye huye th. hsil yeh ki us k tb-e husn ke smne ama-
e rauan ko rakhkar fns mre arm ke be cain hu jt th kih yeh ftb
ko cargh dikhn hu-Dard:

rt mehfil men tere husn ke ole ke huzr

ama ke muh pe jo dekh to kah nr nah th
(Ntiq1968: 108)
Most editions of Dards dwn give majlis instead of mehfil:
 2

rt majlis men tere husn ke ole ke huzr

ama ke muh pe jo dekh to kah nr nah th
(Dard n.d: 66)
The text states ad literam that the lantern felt the candle-wick to be as prickly as
a thorn, i.e., the lantern (covering) felt restless and uncomfortable. The lantern
thus has a thorn in its robe. Im afraid theres really no other way of lexically
reading the second hemistich-absoluta sententia expositore non indiget. The
intentio operis therefore, is prima facie that of a restless and uncomfortable
lantern. The opinio communis of a majority of the venerable commentators,
however, is that the candle has a thorn (its wick) in its robe. They thererefore
see this image as that of a restless and uncomfortable candle.
Theres something very curious about the restless candle reading, since it
violates the plain sense of the second hemistich. Theres the singular
ungrammaticality of describing the pricking object as restless/uncomfortable
rather than the pricked object! A thorn pricking a dress (or anything else)
wont (cant) feel restless/uncomfortable, but the dress so being pricked
certainly will. Im reminded of the English idioms a thorn in the flesh and a
thorn in the side. The flesh and side should feel restless and uncomfortable,
not the thorn! Ad summam (in a word), I cant help but submit, (perhaps meanly)
that the rahn-e kirm seem to have fuzzed up becain karn with becain hon.
The majority of the commentators (many of them Persian scholars) seem to have
glossed the phrase khr-e kiswat-e fns (perhaps unconsciously as suggested in
Faruqi 2006:71) by the Persian idiom khr-e pairhan bdan. Unfortunately, they
seem to have glossed it incorrectly. Theres no standard Persian idiom here,
strictly speaking. khr-e kiswat-e fns in this context means to cause/inflict
pain to another and not to feel or experience pain oneself. Heres Saleems gloss
on khr-e kiswat-e fns: fns ke libs k kt. fns bamn gulb, e k
dhakkan jis ke andar ama ko jaly jt hai tkih haw se bujh nah jye, pinjre
k akl k brk kapre se madha huw cirghdn, bar qadl. kiswat bamn
libs, pok (Saleem 1998:60). Cf Steingass: khri prhan, What afflicts, (my
italics) pains, is hurtful; khr dar prhan rekhtan (dar jaib afgandan), To afflict
(my italics); khri dar jigar shikastan, To render restless or unsteady;
(ibid.1996:437; my italics). The Lughatnmah (Dehkhoda 1339:18) gives beqarr
kardan for khr dar jigar shikastan.

As regards Faruqi Sahibs interpretation, I feel restless and uncomfortable and

embarassed and guilty as well and find myself in an extraordinary state of
infatuation, because Im (philo)logically compelled to criticise the reading of the
scholar Ive most admired in my life, whom I rever as my literary idol and whom I
love, idolize and respect as a spiritual father-l janb Dr. Shamsur Rahman
Faruqi. Im afraid that I really have no choice; I find myself, Janus-like, treating
Faruqi Sahib both as a prva-pakin as well as a siddhmtin. The problem is the
manifest incongruence (which I perceive here) in the transition from Thus, its
been proved that the candle-wick is pricking like a thorn in the robe of the lantern
to And since the lantern is the robe of the candle, we have learned that the candle
has a thorn in its robe. The dissonance is in reading the candle-wick as pricking
like a thorn in the lanterns robe and then stating that the lantern is the
candles robe, which reading, stricto sensu, by way of sororities, turns the lantern
into the candle and vice-versa (by equating robe of the lantern with robe of the
 3

candle) and leads to a reductio ad absurdum! Heres the working out of this
transmutation:

P1: The candle-wick is pricking the lantern (s robe) like a thorn;

P2: The lantern (s robe) is hence uncomfortable due to the candle-wicks
pricking it,
C1: The lantern has a thorn in its robe;
P3: The lantern is the candles robe;
C1: Therefore, the candle-wick is pricking the candle itself like a thorn;
C2: The candle hence has a thorn in its robe;
C3 (from C1 and C2): Hence, the lantern is the candle! (and vice-versa)

This shifts the semantic focus from the candle-wick/thorn pricking another entity
(viz the lantern/robe) to the candle-wick/thorn pricking its own wax-body; i.e.,
itself. Theres also the point that in the candle-wick pricking the lanterns robe,
the robes a degree less metaphorical than the lantern itself metaphorically
being the candles robe. This reduces the entity of the lantern/robe to a
superfluity: since the candle-wick is pricking the candle itself, it can jolly well do
so even in the absence of the lantern-robe, or even the lantern, for that matter.
The text, however, plainly speaks about the candle-wick/thorn pricking the
lanterns robe and not the candles robe; its the lantern that has a (metaphorical)
thorn in its robe and not the candle. Theres also the nice point of the candle-
wick pricking the lanters robe rather than the lantern itself. The quaestio vexata
here is in defining the kiswat-e fns; in choosing between the candle-wick
pricking the candles robe and the lanterns robe. Ill submit that the point
here is about the lanterns robe and even otherwise, the candles robe isnt the
lantern, but the candles own wax-body. Ill cite in favour of my reading a Persian
matlah of the Mirza:
t tuf-e awq-e t adkht jn dar tan-e ama
arar az ritah-e khwesh ast ba pairhane ama
(First ghazal in radf ain, Nrn 1968:163)

I pour sparks into the shirt of the rose when I describe your face;
I am the fire of jealousy, fallen into the breast of spring
(Schimmel 1979:64)
This is an extremely ancient image-used, for example by Antipater in the Palatine
Anthology 5.249 (lampada krochitna; wax-robed candle; Paton 1916:1:433;
wax-robed light, rush-lamp; Gow-Page 1968:1:39). The reading profferred would
have made perfect sense had the text spoken of the candle-wick pricking the
candles robe; the text, however, plainly speaks of the candle-wick pricking the
lanterns robe. The Mirza Sahibs used the same sparks-in-shirt image in
another er:
rezam az wasf-e rakht gul r arar dar pairahan
ti-e rakam ba-jn-e nawbahr uftdaham
(Sixteenth ghazal in radf mm, Nrn 1968:182)
Whats the causa causans of the restless-flame reading? The status quaestonis
of the restless flame commentators seems to attribute the candles restleness to
the olah-r Beloveds hyper-brilliant luminous radiance. The majority read the
reaction of the candle as one of embarrassment and a minority as envy/jealousy.
Its pertinent to note that both these reactions are radically different from each
other. I find the embarassment reading to be very curious since it gives rise to
a logical embarrassment. If the candle-wick/flame is indeed embarrassed,
 4

(many of the commentators say that the flame is watery with shame-pn pn;
all pronounce the verdict uno flatu et uno intuitu that the flames dulled,
dimmed, faded, md) before the olah-r Beloveds luminous brilliance, then
such a watery, dimmed, dulled, faded flame ought to wilt and sputter and lose
its heating power instead of heating up (pricking) the fns wire-mesh
frame/muslin covering. Non-sequitur. Applying the maxim ex antecedentibus et
consequentibus fit optima interpretatio to the behaviour of candle-flames in the
presence of the firelike-Jall-aspected Beloved in the Mirzas Urdu-Persian (Uni)
verse (of discourse), the rak reading seems more probable (as the t tuf-e awq-
e t matlah and the phrase ti-e rakam would suggest). The candle in the
presence of the Jall-aspected beloved is aflame, ignited and immolated with
rak (one of the Mirza sahibs favourite themes; the Mirza sahib undoubtedly
read the Roman elegists, since Elegy frequently oscillates between fascination
and suspicion [Fredrick 1997:173]; Callimachus Aetia fr.1 condemns the
Telchines as a race that understands only how to melt [tkein] its own liver; the
Ghalibean rak is the Greek phthonos, baskania. Tkein is the Greek verb
typically used to describe the effect of phthonos); far from wilting or fading in the
presence of the Beloved, the jealous flame derives its very essence and raison
detre from the hyper-fiery Beloved
rukh-e nigr se hai soz-e jvidn-e ama
hy hai ti-e gul, b-e zidagn-e ama
(Ghalib Urdu dwn 75.1)
Indeed, the candle desperately craves the Beloveds Presence:
be t az khwe cheh goyam bah bazm-e tarabam
pardah-e go-e gul afgr ud az ewan-e ama
(First ghazal in radf ain, Nrn 1968:163)

Amongst the commentators, only Suh, Malsiyani, Jafri, Mihr, Faruqi Sahib and
Niazi opt inter alia for the rak reading. Suh (1928: 81-2) incongruously
juxtaposes envy (hasad) with the dulled flame (mnd) reading. The rak reading
too has difficulties since this reading presupposes an Ultra-prominent, Hyper-
Manifest Beloved, but the Beloved is here described as khalwat-e nms a patent
(and blatant) ungrammaticality. I cant help but observe that many of the
commentators describe the ultra-radiant, fiery manifestation of the Beloved with
the word jalwah (Hierophany; on which see Eliade 1987:11), the very antithesis of
khalwat and nms! Jalwah is a Qurnic word, occuring four times in the
Qurn in three forms 59:3 aljal; 91:3 jallh; 92:2 tajall and 7:143 tajall;
(from the trilateral root ja-la-wa; tajall-e sift; the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic Ur-
topos of Moses at Tr; at Exodus 33:18- And he [Moses] said, Show me your
glory.-Qui ait: Ostende mihi gloriam tuam; to which God responds at 33:20- You
cannot see my face; for no human can see me and live-rursumque ait: non poteris
videre faciem meam non enim videbit me homo, et vivet; Srah 7:143, al-Arf,
Moses requests Allah for a vision [rabbi arin azr] and Allah answers la
tarn); jal, to become clear, evident, manifest; to reveal itself, be revealed; to
appear, show, come to light, come out, manifest itself; to be manifested, be
expressed, find expression (Wehr 1980:132) jilwah, from the same root, is
unveiling of the bride [ibid.). Theres the odd problem then of describing the
Masculine, Hyper-prominent, Ultra-fiery, Flame-like Jall-aspected Solar Beloved
as being in khalwat! Khalwat too is a Qurnic word, occuring thirty-one times in
the Qurn in nine forms. Khalwah in Arabic is privacy, solitude; seclusion,
isolation, retirement; place of retirement or seclusion, retreat, recess; secluded
 5

room etc. (Wehr 1980:260). Also, the jalwah reading with its solar, scorching
connotations is utterly incongruent with ab-another manifest
ungrammaticality.The Beloveds psycho-emotional personas also extremely
discordant here-this er, I suppose, is something of a hapax in the Mirza sahibs
Urdu-Persian (Uni) verse (of discourse)-where the psychopathically hyper-violent,
ultra-blood-thirsty, blood-bath revelling, macho-warriorlike Alpha-male Beloved is
described as khalwat-e nms, a word with especially feminine connotations.
Nms, from the Greek , nomos-reputation, fame, renown, esteem, honour;
dignity (Steingass 1996:1380); also from the Arabic trilateral root na-ma-sa;
nams-to keep secret, hide, conceal some thing; to confide a secret to someone;
confide in someone, let some one on a secret, make someone ones confidant; to
confide a secret (Wehr 1980:1000). Lajj strbhsanam-Modesty is the ornament
of women (Carr 367, 2004:458). The Solar Beloved reading is also
ungrammatical for the reason that the light and radiance spoken of here by the
majority items of the lexical vocabulary (ab, majlis-faroz, khalwat, nms, ama,
kiswat, fns) are soft, feminine dark and lunar rather than harsh
masculine bright and solar-Jaml rather than Jall.

The Persian hypotext (in Genettes sense) of this Urdu hypertext is perhaps this
episode from the Gulistn:

hikyat: abe yd dram kih yr-e azzam az dar dar mad. cun be khd
az j-e barjastam kih cirgham bahstn kutah ud.
misra
sar taifu ma yajl batalatihid-duj
iguft mad az bakhtam kih n dawlat az kuj?

naist o atb ghz kard kih mar dar hl badd cirgh bakuti bacheh
mn? guftam: bah do mn, yak kih gum burdam kih ftb bar mad
o dgar kih baitam bahkhtir bd:
qitah
c garne bah pe-e ama yad
kheza adar miy-e jama baku
war akar khadah st r lab
stna bagr o ama baku
(Sd, Gulistn, bb-e pajum, dar iq o jawn, hikyat aam)

My pitiful translation:

I remember that one night, a beloved friend turned up at my door. I was so beside
myself with delight that in rising from my seat to welcome him, my garments
sleeve extinguished the lamp.
Couplet
A Vision illumined the dark night with its radiant beauty
Im amazed at my fortune for this treasure bestowed on me.

He sat down, and began to complain: On seeing me, you quenched the lamp!
What does this mean? This means two things, I answered. One, I thought the
Sun entered! As for the other, I remembered this verse:

Quatrain
If an unsightly one stands in front of a candle,
 6

rise and smite him in the midst of the assembly;

If it be one with honeyed smiles and sweet lips,
grab his sleeve, and quench the candle instantly
The poetic hypotext is probably Msavi Khn Fitrats er quoted in the
Farhag-e nadarj, cited as an exemplum in the Lughatnmah-i Dikhod
under khr-e prhan:
khr-e prhan-e fns avad ritah-e ama
j ba-har bazm kih ti-e soz drad

My inadequate translation:

The candle-wick becomes a thorn in the lanterns robe

in every assembly illumined by his fiery radiance

This topos, however, is an ancient Indic one, that of prabh:

kcakcyarp ravivatkmtih prabh

(Ruyyaka, Sahrdayall 1.7, Pischel 1886:93, definition of one of the ten guns of
women)
The Sanskrit hypotext of the Persian hypertext is probably this verse from one of
the oldest Sanskrit Kvys, the Buddhacarita of Avaghosa:

sa hi svagtraprabhayojjvalamty dpaprabhm bhskaravamumosa

mahrhajmbunadacruvarno vidyotaymsa diaca sarvh
(Avaghosa, Buddhacarita 1.32)
Kalidasas also used a variant:
aristaayym parito visrin sujanmanastasya nijena tejas
nithdiph sahas hatatviso babhvurlekhyasamarpit iva
(Kalidasa, Raghuvama 3.15)
After all this blah, Vivek, my petition to you is as under: If for the reasons cited
above, the prabh reading is incongruent, what, in your esteemed opinion, would
be a better interpretation?

Love

satya