# Persian: بود آیا که فلک زین دو سه کاری بکند



## Shounak

*Hello All,*

This is from "Diwan e Hafiz". The opening lines are: طایر دولت اگر باز گذاری بکند

The lines are:

یا وفا یا خبر وصل تو یا مرگ رقیب
بود آیا که فلک *زین *دو سه کاری بکند


In this poem the line: " بود آیا که فلک زین دو سه کاری بکند "
the word *زین * does it mean *saddle?*

So the overall meaning is " _Was it possible for the saddle to do two things"_

Thanks


----------



## Qureshpor

زین I believe is the contracted form of از این


----------



## Shounak

Qureshpor said:


> زین I believe is the contracted form of از این



Does it mean:

_Was that for the Heaven two things are not possible?_


----------



## sublan

Shounak said:


> Does it mean:
> 
> _Was that for the Heaven two things are not possible?_


I hope that the Heaven will do one of these things (as they are equally favorable: you be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies)


----------



## Shounak

sublan said:


> I hope that the Heaven will do one of these things (as they are equally favorable: you be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies)


Thank you.


----------



## mannoushka

Quote
You be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies.
Unquote
In the second option, is the poet hoping to commune with the beloved, or is he praying and hoping to hear news of such communion between the beloved and whomever she happens to desire to commune with?


----------



## Shounak

mannoushka said:


> Quote
> You be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies.
> Unquote
> In the second option, is the poet hoping to commune with the beloved, or is he praying and hoping to hear news of such communion between the beloved and whomever she happens to desire to commune with?


Thanks a lot !!


----------



## mannoushka

It is a matter for debate, since fidelity in matters of the heart may or may not be different to _vasl_. What say ye?


----------



## sublan

mannoushka said:


> Quote
> You be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies.
> Unquote
> In the second option, is the poet hoping to commune with the beloved, or is he praying and hoping to hear news of such communion between the beloved and whomever she happens to desire to commune with?


Yes, numerous interpretations could be attached to the poems of Hafez.


----------



## PersoLatin

Shounak said:


> یا وفا یا خبر وصل تو یا مرگ رقیب
> بود آیا که فلک *زین *دو سه کاری بکند


Lit.:
Either faithfulness from you (i.e. joining me) or the news of; you marrying the rival lover or his/her death
Is it possible that heavens will do anything other than* those* *from the *2 or 3 (events mentioned)


----------



## mannoushka

Yes, sublan, I agree, except one doesn’t often hear news of the beloved being in one’s own arms, is what puzzles me about your particular interpretation.


----------



## Qureshpor

sublan said:


> I hope that the Heaven will do one of these things (as they are equally favorable: you be kind to me, you join me, or the enemy dies)


I believe your understanding is closer to the mark. This couplet has another slightly different version.

یا وفا یا خبر وصل تو یا مرگ رقیب
بازی چرخ زین یک دو سه کارے بکند

Either fidelity (from you), news of (my) union with you or the death of (my) rival
The game played in the heavans may yield (at least) one of these three things


----------



## mannoushka

Qureshpor, I have to disagree with all my strength!

One, the couplet as you quote it fails to keep its natural beat. Haafez just doesn’t fail where the beat is concerned, ever!

Two, it is not “news of (my) union with you”, but “news of your union”, خبرِ وصلِ تو.

Three, if the second option open to the firmaments is ‘news of you uniting with me’, then what is the basic difference between options one and two?

Four, as a reiteration, if the speaker and the beloved should unite, the speaker would experience such an event firsthand; he would not hear news of it through third parties. Haafez would not write verse in such a roundabout and illogical way about his own communion with the beloved.

Five, the idea of the couplet is, the poet is saying that he would have the beloved show loyalty to him, but that he would find sufficient magnanimity or realism in himself to allow the beloved communion with whomever she would be happy with, while the third option consists in the hand of god removing the possibility of any rivalry altogether.


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> the poet is saying that *he would have the beloved show loyalty to him*, but that he would find sufficient magnanimity or realism in himself to *allow the beloved communion with whomever she would be happy with*, while the third option consists in the *hand of god* *removing the possibility of any rivalry altogether*.


Exactly, this level of 'interpretation' should be the maximum ever allowed (the bold parts show the 3 options, my comment applies to the whole quote above).

Poets do not write poetry for them to be interpreted, they go through the pain or enjoyment of writing a correct set of words for people to understand as they are, otherwise they have failed in their task.  Reinterpretation of Persian poetry, or any poetry for that matter, can only be carried out on 100% accurate translation, and necessary only when translating it to another language.

Of course poets do intentionally write words in such a way to avoid persecution but those are very easily identifiable.


----------



## Qureshpor

mannoushka said:


> Qureshpor, I have to disagree with all my strength!
> 
> One, the couplet as you quote it fails to keep its natural beat. Haafez just doesn’t fail where the beat is concerned, ever!
> 
> Two, it is not “news of (my) union with you”, but “news of your union”, خبرِ وصلِ تو.
> 
> Three, if the second option open to the firmaments is ‘news of you uniting with me’, then what is the basic difference between options one and two?
> 
> Four, as a reiteration, if the speaker and the beloved should unite, the speaker would experience such an even firsthand; he would not hear news of it through third parties. Haafez would not write verse in such a roundabout and illogical way about his own communion with the beloved.
> 
> Five, the idea of the couplet is, the poet is saying that he would have the beloved show loyalty to him, but that he would find sufficient magnanimity or realism in himself to allow the beloved communion with whomever she would be happy with, while the third option consists in the hand of god removing the possibility of any rivalry altogether.


That's no problem. It is good to disagree now and again. Whichever version of the shi3r we have in front of us, my understanding, in essence, is the same as I have provided. We'll leave it at this.


----------



## mannoushka

For now, it seems شهر خالیست ز عشاق! ...

While I’m arguing away all by myself, here’s another thing I forgot to mention. It is true that in the poems Haafez speaks to another Haafez, to another one who happens to be himself, but it doesn’t follow that each instance of a ‘you’ is necessarily an address by the poet to himself, in case     anybody should imagine it is.


----------



## mannoushka

Also, altering the second part of the couplet has not suddenly shed light on anything, least of all on the meaning, in the first part, I don’t think. True?


----------



## mannoushka

PersoLatin said:


> Exactly, this level of 'interpretation' should be the maximum ever allowed (the bold parts show the 3 options, my comment applies to the whole quote above).
> 
> Poets do not write poetry for them to be interpreted, they go through the pain or enjoyment of writing a correct set of words for people to understand as they are, otherwise they have failed in their task.  Reinterpretation of Persian poetry, or any poetry for that matter, can only be carried out on 100% accurate translation, and necessary only when translating it to another language.
> 
> Of course poets do intentionally write words in such a way to avoid persecution but those are very easily identifiable.


PersoLatin, I may not have quite understood the point you are making here. But I shall just mention in passing that actually more than one accurate translation or interpretation is quite possible and even a requirement on occasion. Because of the game of word associations, and in order to cover a possible ایهام.


----------



## PersoLatin

Thank you.

I’m saying, if you were to translate a Persian poem, say, to English, you must translate the words into English 100% accurately first and allow no inaccuracies, even if the translation doesn’t make much sense in English. You then introduce equivalent English language concepts to those in the translated piece, if you call this latter thing interpretation then I have no problems with it, but the translated piece must be used as the source, however ugly or unwieldily it may be, so translate 100% faithfully then reword or interpret with care and no embellishing.

Having said that, the real world doesn’t work like that,  we can’t always see the black & white lines for the shades of grey we keep introducing. We as humans have managed to mistranslate & worse, misinterpret everything written from day one.


----------



## mannoushka

It is so true what you say, PersoLatin. And the more we use language to communicate the more we miss the point of someone else’s speech. There  is no other way though, is there? I still hope others with different interpretations of the couplet will see fit to reason their case here, as I wish to learn something if I can. Thanks for expanding your viewpoint.


----------



## PersoLatin

mannoushka said:


> There is no other way though, is there?


This is in theory, in practice though, when you have deadlines & volumes of books to translate, it is hard to implement, but we need to have ideals, and btw I’m not talking about myself.


----------

